Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Obama admin having to admit waterboarding worked?

101 posts in this topic

Posted

Wow, Clinton managed to take care of all that with some air strikes. He really was a military genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No it is not. W Iraq Mantra 101 was that Saddam was working with Al Queida. Mantra 102 was Iraq had aluminum tubes. Mantra 103 was Iraq wanted to buy yellowcake. Mantra 104 was Iraqis needed freedom. Mantra 105 was that only invading Iraq would solve this terrible problem, yet after the invasion it turned out that what we were doing prior to it was working.

With the exception of Al Q(and that is where he truly blew it) is the same as Clintons.

So if Saddam was hiding nothing, why not let the inspectors in?

Do the cops put an ad in the paper or on tv and say, "on April 25th, 2009, we are going to John Smiths house to search for drugs and weapons"?

W simply carried out Act III of W 1 and Clinton's gameplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Unless of course Bill, some nutcase becomes President due to your inability to keep it zipped, and has a pretext to send our young men and women into those dangers to show his daddy who is boss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We've called for regime change in Cuba since the 50s. Still waiting on that invasion.

We called for regime change in the Soviet Union. Never got around to an invasion though.

Want North Korea to change their government. When's that invasion planned? They actually HAVE nukes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Nice try. Keep your eye on the ball here.

What Clinton said and alluded to in the future(again, with the exception of AlQ link) is not that different than W.

The N Korea thing is lame.

Cuba? Come on man. That's like a Dallas Cowboy fan talking about Super Bowl XL.

Go back and read the entire transcript, look at when Clinton says "our intrests" and you will see why N Korea is such a non factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

With the exception of Al Q(and that is where he truly blew it) is the same as Clintons.

So if Saddam was hiding nothing, why not let the inspectors in?

Do the cops put an ad in the paper or on tv and say, "on April 25th, 2009, we are going to John Smiths house to search for drugs and weapons"?

W simply carried out Act III of W 1 and Clinton's gameplan.

this war was more than the sum of its parts. The blatant and intentional disregard of proper intelligence and the opinions of the people most experienced in the region (among them those same inspectors) being the key to it all. If we're playing hypotheticals and getting into the minds of madmen lets try this: We both know that if Hussein had let the inspectors in that Bush would've found a reason to go in anyway. The writing was on the wall. To chalk the Iraq war up as an extension of anti-terror policy is a joke that has been played out to the nth degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

this war was more than the sum of its parts. The blatant and intentional disregard of proper intelligence and the opinions of the people most experienced in the region (among them those same inspectors) being the key to it all. If we're playing hypotheticals and getting into the minds of madmen lets try this: We both know that if Hussein had let the inspectors in that Bush would've found a reason to go in anyway. The writing was on the wall. To chalk the Iraq war up as an extension of anti-terror policy is a joke that has been played out to the nth degree.

that is a MUCH farther leap than what Im saying. Albeit insanely cynical.

Even in 1998 the song and dance was on.

Either Hussien NEVER had WMD. He had them and just used them a lil bit. Had them and hid them. Or both Clinton and W and both groups of congress LIED thru their teeth.

I'm curious to this question. Is it to hard to imagine Saddam had WMD and actually hid or destroyed what he had? I mean he is a bad guy but not a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He had chemical weapons. We know this because he used them in Iranians, and then on his own people who tried to start an uprising we said we would support but didn't.

From what I have seen, for some reason his ability to make them went away after the Gulf War. The stuff he had was cursed with a limited shelf life, and his ability to start up any programs were in fact, constantly thwarted by the UN inspectors, and for some reason he decided to use this to what he percieved as his advantage. By playing "poor Saddam" he hoped to convince the Arab nations that the West was being unfair to him - it's a ploy he'd used before but no one was buying it. The idea of having a real chemical weapons program was tossed aside for the illusion of him having one for some kind of political gamesmanship.

If in fact he destroyed anything, that means the invasion was not needed. If he hid them, there is no way I could believe that no one would have a clue where to look for them after all these years. The whole Syria thing has to be BS; no one gives their magic weapons to another country just because they are getting invaded, and someone in that country would have spilled the beans by now - or given them to Hamas or something. Saddam was a survivor and I bet that until that noose was around his neck he thought he was going to find a way out of his mess, and if he had any unused goodies, would have been wanting to use them somehow, so giving them away would have been a pretty big blunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

He had chemical weapons. We know this because he used them in Iranians, and then on his own people who tried to start an uprising we said we would support but didn't.

From what I have seen, for some reason his ability to make them went away after the Gulf War. The stuff he had was cursed with a limited shelf life, and his ability to start up any programs were in fact, constantly thwarted by the UN inspectors, and for some reason he decided to use this to what he percieved as his advantage. By playing "poor Saddam" he hoped to convince the Arab nations that the West was being unfair to him - it's a ploy he'd used before but no one was buying it. The idea of having a real chemical weapons program was tossed aside for the illusion of him having one for some kind of political gamesmanship.

If in fact he destroyed anything, that means the invasion was not needed. If he hid them, there is no way I could believe that no one would have a clue where to look for them after all these years. The whole Syria thing has to be BS; no one gives their magic weapons to another country just because they are getting invaded, and someone in that country would have spilled the beans by now - or given them to Hamas or something. Saddam was a survivor and I bet that until that noose was around his neck he thought he was going to find a way out of his mess, and if he had any unused goodies, would have been wanting to use them somehow, so giving them away would have been a pretty big blunder.

You stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, didn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Clinton didn't seem to think his ability to make or use went away.

He even said, mark my words.

And why didn't Clinton really go the international route and put the onus back on the ME to take care of Saddam if there were some who really didn't like him?

98 the UN inspectors talked about Saddam not following the even more recent criteria for inspection. If ya got nothing to hide, big deal. Let em in. Was it a power play to his neighbors or was he buying time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. Clinton never felt it was the US' job to "liberate" Iraq. And he could have been right - but he never, ever felt the US was threatened by Iraq to the point that invasion was considered.

2. The Arab world was not interested in taking over this job, and the US was not interested in trusting them to do it.

3. I explained all that. Buying time? Probably not - IMHO it was a power struggle against the West he just wanted to win, like a 3 year old arguing over eating their dinner. Definitely the idea of him having some wonder weapons would help other local nations be dissuaded from trying to take over his oil fields. Since he didn't really have an army left, it was kind of his only option that made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. Clinton never felt it was the US' job to "liberate" Iraq. And he could have been right - but he never, ever felt the US was threatened by Iraq to the point that invasion was considered.

2. The Arab world was not interested in taking over this job, and the US was not interested in trusting them to do it.

3. I explained all that. Buying time? Probably not - IMHO it was a power struggle against the West he just wanted to win, like a 3 year old arguing over eating their dinner. Definitely the idea of him having some wonder weapons would help other local nations be dissuaded from trying to take over his oil fields. Since he didn't really have an army left, it was kind of his only option that made sense.

You conveniently skipped my question. Question skipper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites