Let's impeach the president.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

there wasn't anything to prove the connection between the 2. he got what he wanted, Hussein. he just made it easier to sell to the American people. i would have looked at Geo. Bush totally different if he would have invaded Afghanistan, and captured Bin Laden. i think history would have, too

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

1998 was the time when the inspectors were being kicked out of Iraq and Saddam was making noise. After the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, Gen. Richard A. Clarke, then part of team Clinton's counter-terrorism staff, made some noise about Saddam offering Bin Laden asylum. Nothing came of Richard's comments and the enforcement of the Iraq no-fly-zone was stepped up after Saddam foolishly said he wouldn't respect the no-fly-zone.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

Ibuprophen factory. August, 1998. Same week or day he was deposed by Starr's lawyers, I think.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Clinton also make a link following the embassy attacks in Sudan (was it Sudan?) back in 1998? Then he went and bombed a hospital or something like that.

Saden, help me out here. Refresh my memory

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

True, but I think he had said there was a connection regardless. And he bombed that ibuprofen factory as 70chip pointed out. And Saden made some good point as well. (too lazy to scroll to find it)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No, Sudan had Bin Laden and wanted to know if we wanted him but Clinton passed on the deal and the rest is history.

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

That doesn't sound right, can you provide a link to support your statement.

Bill Clinton ignoring Bin Laden
This seemed to give a little of both sides. Its hard to find something without a slant either right or left.

[SmootSmack]

What I don't get is how people seem to think this is all new. Politics and running the country have always been a shady game. Jefferson had to circumvent his rights to make the Lousiana Purchase, Adams (I think it was Adams) tampered with civil liberties with the Alien and Sedition Acts, Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, McKinley I don't believe had any true legit reason to launch the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt involved the US in a Colombian civil war for the sole purpose of creating Panama and the Panama Canal,...and so on.

I don't know how history will remember W. But it's interesting to note that the presidents often seen as the worst of all-time (Buchanan and Harding to name two) are the ones who chose to do nothing, often because legally that's all they could do.

[dmek25]

smootsmack, politics is, and will always be, a shady affair. our government thinks either the public cant handle the truth. or would rather not hear it. these shady dealings go on in every presidency. some administrations are more inept in covering things up, and thats the biggest difference

[skinsfan_nn]

Well lets see a Parking lot. Football Fans & Politics, hum...?

Sounds like a timebomb, tic, toc........I think it's getting near the end.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Since this thread has gone off on so many tangents, is likely to get shut down soon, and will ultimately be sent to thread hell, let me respond with a few thoughts on many of the issues that have been raised.

(1) The firing of the assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) was, IMHO, bad. No one in the administration is seriously defending the move and for good reason. Whomever is behind the matter deserves a serious public flogging. The firings were politically motivated and were an attempt to manipulate the justice system to serve very unsavory political ends.

(2) Everyone, including the French, thought Saddam had WMDs. Saddam tried to make everyone, allies and enemies alike, think he had WMDs. Guess what? It worked. Bush "beefed up" the intel, but he didn't lie when he said he was convinced Saddam had WMDs. We (including those like myself who were against going to war in the first instance) were simply wrong.

(3) I cannot figure out why anyone disagrees with "calling out" Iran. I do not want to go to war with them, but they're already at war with us. Iran has been training and equipping people in Iraq for years so they could kill Americans. Iran has a horrible human rights record. Iran is dominated by little Pat Robertsons. Like Hugo Chavez, Iran suppresses dissent by making midnight arrests and controlling the press. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with condemning Iran's government, particularly those who have opposed US policy of supporting brutal and oppressive dictatorships.

(4) Finally, avoid engaging in personal attacks or risk losing posting privileges or access to political forums. No one cares to read posts that amount to a pissing contest between two or more posters that are simply annoying and which detract from the thread. Honest and civil debate is encouraged, but personal attacks are not tolerated.

End rant.

[dblanch66]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Since this thread has gone off on so many tangents, is likely to get shut down soon, and will ultimately be sent to thread hell, let me respond with a few thoughts on many of the issues that have been raised.

(1) The firing of the assistant US Attorneys (AUSAs) was, IMHO, bad. No one in the administration is seriously defending the move and for good reason. Whomever is behind the matter deserves a serious public flogging. The firings were politically motivated and were an attempt to manipulate the justice system to serve very unsavory political ends.

(2) Everyone, including the French, thought Saddam had WMDs. Saddam tried to make everyone, allies and enemies alike, think he had WMDs. Guess what? It worked. Bush "beefed up" the intel, but he didn't lie when he said he was convinced Saddam had WMDs. We (including those like myself who were against going to war in the first instance) were simply wrong.

(3) I cannot figure out why anyone disagrees with "calling out" Iran. I do not want to go to war with them, but they're already at war with us. Iran has been training and equipping people in Iraq for years so they could kill Americans. Iran has a horrible human rights record. Iran is dominated by little Pat Robertsons. Like Hugo Chavez, Iran suppresses dissent by making midnight arrests and controlling the press. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone on either side of the political spectrum would disagree with condemning Iran's government, particularly those who have opposed US policy of supporting brutal and oppressive dictatorships.

(4) Finally, avoid engaging in personal attacks or risk losing posting privileges or access to political forums. No one cares to read posts that amount to a pissing contest between two or more posters that are simply annoying and which detract from the thread. Honest and civil debate is encouraged, but personal attacks are not tolerated.

End rant.

Actually, Bush said he had evidence that Saddam had WMD's. That, if I'm not mistaken, was a LIE. Spin it any way you want.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Actually, Bush said he had evidence that Saddam had WMD's. That, if I'm not mistaken, was a LIE. Spin it any way you want.

He did have evidence that Saddam had WMDs, as did other nations (including France, which loudly opposed the war). Prosecutors have evidence that innocent people committed crimes. I'm not spinning anything.

Lying involves an intent to deceive. Does anyone honestly think that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs, but told the public otherwise? "Beefing up" evidence leading to a conclusion that you think is accurate is not the same thing as making things up to prove a point that you know is false.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dblanch66

Actually, Bush said he had evidence that Saddam had WMD's. That, if I'm not mistaken, was a LIE. Spin it any way you want.

Actually if you remember Colen Powell made that slide presitation to the UN showing what was thought of evidence that Sadam had WMD's. You remember the one's of satalite survalance of Iraq.

[70Chip]

I think that this thread deserves no worse than limbo or purgatory. It doesn't seem particularly rancorous to me.