Flashback....President Clinton explains Iraq strike

[stephanie]

1998

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

READ THE REST...
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

[retiredman]

and the difference between a comparably dirt cheap "strike" and a trillion dollar five year invasion/conquest/occupation is somehow lost on you?

[stephanie]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[retiredman]

ah yes...the hackeneyed old quotes. nice dodge to avoid answering my question. come on steph...show some balls!:lol:

oh..and while you are growing a set, please show me where any of those democrats were urging a trillion dollar five year invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.

I'll wait.

[stephanie]

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Cleland (D-GA), Yea Miller (D-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Dayton (D-MN), Nay Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Yea
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Nay Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Edwards (D-NC), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Yea Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Find out about congressional voting with this How to guide.

Use this guide to help you find the full text of recent bills and resolutions on the Web, or order them from the Senate or House Document Rooms, or you can find them in a library.

You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the THOMAS Web site. Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on THOMAS.

The Votes page of the Virtual Reference Desk provides voting procedure information, research guides, and essays about historic votes.

The Votes category on the Statistics page features facts and figures about votes made by Senators.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[jimnyc]

ah yes...the hackeneyed old quotes. nice dodge to avoid answering my question. come on steph...show some balls!:lol:

oh..and while you are growing a set, please show me where any of those democrats were urging a trillion dollar five year invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.

I'll wait.

And it's who's fault that you and your brethren can speak tough words but then not have the backbone to back them up? The dems who spoke these words and now backpedaling on them are frauds and liars with no dignity just like yourself. From Kerry and his fake medals, to the democrats and their false promises followed up by lies to you and your lies of bravado and service. It just seems to never end.

[Gaffer]

ah yes...the hackeneyed old quotes. nice dodge to avoid answering my question. come on steph...show some balls!:lol:

oh..and while you are growing a set, please show me where any of those democrats were urging a trillion dollar five year invasion/conquest/occupation of Iraq.

I'll wait.

What are they all calling for in steph's post? He should get a nasty letter and be called a bad name?

You can rectify everything mfm by closing your eyes, crossing your finger and crossing your arms over your chest and clicking your heels together three times while saying " There's no place like 2000". Just keep that up until gore is president.

[retiredman]

And it's who's fault that you and your brethren can speak tough words but then not have the backbone to back them up? The dems who spoke these words and now backpedaling on them are frauds and liars with no dignity just like yourself. From Kerry and his fake medals, to the democrats and their false promises followed up by lies to you and your lies of bravado and service. It just seems to never end.

why do you continue to insult me integrity? You have no basis for doing so and it only makes you look like a prick.....but then, having seen your photo and read your words, that seems like a fairly accurate portrait.

The point is: the war was stupid.... many democrats wanted to deal with Saddam, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the fact that there were more options available to us than simply invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Democrats did not support that boneheaded approach. America does not support that boneheaded approach which is why you got your ass handed to you in the midterms and why your party will lose the white house next year.

[April15]

How about these flashbacks;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields...98/sg_8-21.html
Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot and syndicated columnist Mark Shields analyze a week that included President Clinton's nationally-televised admission that he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and a missile strike against terrorist bases in Afghanistan and Sudan.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200603200012
In fact, during Clinton's tenure, a number of Republicans criticized Clinton's retaliatory military attacks on Osama bin Laden's purported Afghanistan compound and reported sites of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by repeatedly accusing the Democratic president of "Wag the Dog" tactics -- using military action to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky controversy.

http://www.mideastnews.com/press98summer.htm
Cruise Missle Diplomacy (this one is a stunner as the Republican diversion accusations against Clinton are used against the U.S. by the Arab World.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp...y/20050603.html
When Clinton announced to the American public that bin Laden was a serious threat to the U.S. and he intended to strike back, the Republicans and many in the media accused him of diverting attention away from the Lewinsky scandal with a desperate Wag the Dog tactic.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronic.../symposium.html
Accusations that the Lewinsky trial was purposely being done to distract from real life situations that needed tending.

http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintoncrime.htm
The president's surrogates and supporters are expert in diverting attention from whatever current scandal President Clinton is embroiled in.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS....lkl/index.html
"The Clinton administration failed to bomb the [al Qaeda] camps that were in Afghanistan, that we knew were there," Clarke said. "Clinton bombed them once. The public reaction was negative to that. ... Everyone said Clinton's just bombing Afghanistan to divert attention from the Monica [Lewinsky] business, and so he didn't bomb them again.

"That was during a time when they were turning out thousands of trained terrorists. It was an assembly line."

[jimnyc]

why do you continue to insult me integrity? You have no basis for doing so and it only makes you look like a prick.....but then, having seen your photo and read your words, that seems like a fairly accurate portrait.

Funny how you can go from one thread accusing another member of "you're just a redneck ski bum with a penchant for young boys." and then come to this thread and claim to have integrity and demand respect. My basis is this: You have shown nothing to prove you were in the service. You don't speak like a man who has been in the service. You don't act like a man who is been in the service. You have no respect for others.


The point is: the war was stupid.... many democrats wanted to deal with Saddam, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the fact that there were more options available to us than simply invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Democrats did not support that boneheaded approach. America does not support that boneheaded approach which is why you got your ass handed to you in the midterms and why your party will lose the white house next year.

Sure, keep repeating that to yourself about your fellow liars as you peruse their own words in this thread. You seem to think you're bothering me by constantly whining about who's in the white house. I really don't care, so long as whomever is in charge does the right thing by this country, and fighting terrorism being the #1 priority. Since we all know the dems will do an about face and keep the fight going I'm not too worried. But then again, your words sound eerily similar to what thousands were claiming in 2004 and I had a blast telling them for the year prior to the election how they were wrong. Guess who laughed last in '04?

[retiredman]

you are aware, aren't you steph, that a majority of democrats in congress voted AGAINST the war in Iraq whereas an overwhelming majority of republicans voted for it?

America is very aware of that.....hence your ass kicking 11/06!:lol:

[stephanie]

The point is: the war was stupid.... many democrats wanted to deal with Saddam, but you seem to be incapable of comprehending the fact that there were more options available to us than simply invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Democrats did not support that boneheaded approach. America does not support that boneheaded approach which is why you got your ass handed to you in the midterms and why your party will lose the white house next year.

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/edwardsbiker-1.gif

[retiredman]

Funny how you can go from one thread accusing another member of "you're just a redneck ski bum with a penchant for young boys." and then come to this thread and claim to have integrity and demand respect. My basis is this: You have shown nothing to prove you were in the service. You don't speak like a man who has been in the service. You don't act like a man who is been in the service. You have no respect for others.
how does one go about proving they were in the service here on this board? what could I possibly say that would prove to you that I went to the naval academy, graduated in 1972, and retired in 1993? SHjy of posting my DD214, which would make zero sense given the violent penchant of some of your conservative compatriots, what could I do that would prove anything to you? And FUCK YOU with your feigned concern for everyone else's honor. You allow the sort of shit that sir evil and glock to say and do to me in public and in rep comments but get all weepy about my playing the same fucking game with them? for crissakes, show some balance as an owner/moderator!



Sure, keep repeating that to yourself about your fellow liars as you peruse their own words in this thread. You seem to think you're bothering me by constantly whining about who's in the white house. I really don't care, so long as whomever is in charge does the right thing by this country, and fighting terrorism being the #1 priority. Since we all know the dems will do an about face and keep the fight going I'm not too worried. But then again, your words sound eerily similar to what thousands were claiming in 2004 and I had a blast telling them for the year prior to the election how they were wrong. Guess who laughed last in '04?

YOu don't know shit from fat meat about what the democrats will do about fighting our enemies. All you know is what the right wing slime machine crams into your tiny little cranium.

I, along with most democrats, am 100% behind fighting islamic extremism. I am 100% against babysitting the Iraqi civil war where both sides are killing us.

[Sir Evil]

come on steph...show some balls!:lol:


You scumbag!

I can understand that you are incabable of the higher level of discourse you claimed but still have'nt learned how to hold your tone around the ladies. I'm sure most ladies you are with are likely to have balls but don't go assuming that real women do.

[jimnyc]

how does one go about proving they were in the service here on this board? what could I possibly say that would prove to you that I went to the naval academy, graduated in 1972, and retired in 1993? SHjy of posting my DD214, which would make zero sense given the violent penchant of some of your conservative compatriots, what could I do that would prove anything to you? And FUCK YOU with your feigned concern for everyone else's honor. You allow the sort of shit that sir evil and glock to say and do to me in public and in rep comments but get all weepy about my playing the same fucking game with them? for crissakes, show some balance as an owner/moderator!

I allow them to reply to you in that manner. Have I stopped you? No, I haven't. I just reply myself. How is that not balanced? I haven't stopped anyone. Sounds to me like I've been pretty damn consistent. So there's another complaint you can shove up your lying ass.


YOu don't know shit from fat meat about what the democrats will do about fighting our enemies. All you know is what the right wing slime machine crams into your tiny little cranium.

I, along with most democrats, am 100% behind fighting islamic extremism. I am 100% against babysitting the Iraqi civil war where both sides are killing us.

I know more than you, that's for damn sure. Your claims about my "tiny cranium" are laughable.

We have a "one on one" debate forum here where MANY have volunteered to enter various debates. Why don't you volunteer for one of the subjects? Afraid you'll be exposed as the dolt you are? :laugh2:

[retiredman]

I allow them to reply to you in that manner. Have I stopped you? No, I haven't. I just reply myself. How is that not balanced? I haven't stopped anyone. Sounds to me like I've been pretty damn consistent. So there's another complaint you can shove up your lying ass.

there you go with that "lying" thing again...do you even fucking know what the word means?



I know more than you, that's for damn sure. Your claims about my "tiny cranium" are laughable.

laugh on with your bad self.

We have a "one on one" debate forum here where MANY have volunteered to enter various debates. Why don't you volunteer for one of the subjects? Afraid you'll be exposed as the dolt you are? :laugh2:

the only issue I care to debate is the war in Iraq, and how it is counterproductive to the war against our real enemies.... the only one that came close was grabbed by typo, I believe, nearly instantaneously.

[jimnyc]

there you go with that "lying" thing again...do you even fucking know what the word means?

Yes, asswipe. You just claimed I wasn't balanced. I showed how that was a lie, and called you a liar when I was done proving so. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

[Sir Evil]

Yes, asswipe. You just claimed I wasn't balanced. I showed how that was a lie, and called you a liar when I was done proving so. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

Showing him the door would be the more balanced thing to do.

[retiredman]

Yes, asswipe. You just claimed I wasn't balanced. I showed how that was a lie, and called you a liar when I was done proving so. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

and I would suggest that when one compares your treatment of me with your treatment of, say, sir evil, that your lack of balance becomes quite evident!:lol:

how long would I stay a member here if I insulted someone with the sorts of crap that your brother insults me with in reputation commments day after day after day after day after day?

Mr. fair and balanced????

[Sir Evil]

and I would suggest that when one compares your treatment of me with your treatment of, say, sir evil, that your lack of balance becomes quite evident!:lol:

how long would I stay a member here if I insulted someone with the sorts of crap that your brother insults me with in reputation commments day after day after day after day after day?

Mr. fair and balanced????

You are simply a scum bag, Jim is my brother and has banned me several time before. Still this does not change the fact that you are utter filth to any forum you post on.

[retiredman]

You are simply a scum bag, Jim is my brother and has banned me several time before. Still this does not change the fact that you are utter filth to any forum you post on.

that is your opinion.... and you are certainly entitled to it. I disagree....and I think that anyone here would be forced to agree that your vendetta with me is not all that pleasant for anyone.

[jimnyc]

and I would suggest that when one compares your treatment of me with your treatment of, say, sir evil, that your lack of balance becomes quite evident!:lol:

how long would I stay a member here if I insulted someone with the sorts of crap that your brother insults me with in reputation commments day after day after day after day after day?

Mr. fair and balanced????

You have the right to say whatever you want to him via the rep system. I have the right to take the same action against him that I have in your defense. Funny how you want to make these claims on the board but fail to tell the board THAT I HAVE HELPED YOU WITH THE ISSUE AND DELETED SAID COMMENTS. Have you made comments and been banned as a result? No, you haven't. So once again, you're just making shit up. Now I suggest you drop the discussion about the rep comments as they will no longer be discussed on the board. I believe this is THE FOURTH TIME TODAY I have had to ask you to refrain from discussing them on the forums.

At least 20 members want you banned. Staff is virtually unanimous in wanting you permanently banned. I AM THE SOLE REASON YOU REMAIN AS A MEMBER ON THIS BOARD. I have defended free speech and your right to be here, against the majority wanting you gone. I have worked with you umpteen times in relation to board issues. And yet you still come back here with your "Mr. fair and balanced" garbage. I get the complete heat for not being fair to members and yet it's me those very members have to be thankful to for still being able to post whatever they wish here.

Every one of you who makes these claims walks away looking like an idiot when the true facts are revealed. I suggest you continue on with the subject matter of this thread. Read what I wrote, let it digest, and move on with the topic. I'm only posting this publicly so others can see the truth about how I have handled these issues.

Just move on.

[Sir Evil]

that is your opinion.... and you are certainly entitled to it. I disagree....and I think that anyone here would be forced to agree that your vendetta with me is not all that pleasant for anyone.

It was never meant to be pleasant scumbag. I told you from day 1 to be ready for it, that you would be best served to put me on ignore list like the pussy you are.

Now it's quite obvious that you have a high opinion of yourself but everyone knows you are a scumbag, the few here that would disagree with that, you know who they are, I know who they are, everyone probably has a good idea who they are, and their opinions would be pretty useless at this point seeing that they never said a single word to that fact of your scumbag statement to RSR.

[retiredman]

aye aye sir

[Sir Evil]

At least 20 members want you banned. Staff is virtually unanimous in wanting you permanently banned. I AM THE SOLE REASON YOU REMAIN AS A MEMBER ON THIS BOARD.

Ah, you are a dick....:cheers2:


:laugh2:

[stephanie]

you are aware, aren't you steph, that a majority of democrats in congress voted AGAINST the war in Iraq whereas an overwhelming majority of republicans voted for

Oh boy.......that's reaching...:lol:

[retiredman]

Oh boy.......that's reaching...:lol:

I suppose it might be reaching...if math was too hard for you to comprehend.

"majority" is really not all that difficult a concept for most of us. I suppose I should have asked whether you were a ditzy bimbo who couldn't balance her checkbook. my apologies

[Sir Evil]

I suppose it might be reaching...if math was too hard for you to comprehend.

"majority" is really not all that difficult a concept for most of us. I suppose I should have asked whether you were a ditzy bimbo who couldn't balance her checkbook. my apologies

You classless piece of shit! This ladies has way more class than you would know about, she is not like the trannies that you are used to mouthing off too, scumbag.

[stephanie]

I suppose it might be reaching...if math was too hard for you to comprehend.

"majority" is really not all that difficult a concept for most of us. I suppose I should have asked whether you were a ditzy bimbo who couldn't balance her checkbook. my apologies


http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/baby_tiger_surprised_face-1.jpg