I miss Bill Clinton.

[kingorpawn]

However, if Clinton would have made more effort to Kill Osama Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, 9/11 and the Iraq war might never have happen. I don't remember all the details anymore, but according to a retired Air Force General that worked under Clinton he stated that when they had sited Osama Bin Laden they informed Clinton so he could give the order to launch air strike or cruise missiles at this location and Clinton who was watching either a football or basketball game took his time and finally ordered the strike, but Osama was gone by then.

[undercover1]

Kin

The invasion of Iraq led by George W happened because W wanted the invasion and take down of Hussain. You're dreaming if you think if Clinton had taken Osama the Iraq war would never have happened.

If you believe what you said....you simply don't know your history and haven't read books by people inside the W administration and the speeches these neocons made during the Clinton years about the need to take Hussain out.

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by undercover1

Kin

The invasion of Iraq led by George W happened because W wanted the invasion and take down of Hussain. You're dreaming if you think if Clinton had taken Osama the Iraq war would never have happened.

If you believe what you said....you simply don't know your history and haven't read books by people inside the W administration and the speeches these neocons made during the Clinton years about the need to take Hussain out.

First of all, I never agreed with the war. I was there. I agree Bush wanted to get Saddam. Saddam put a contract out on Bush Sr., so it was personal. I believe Bush used the American military as mercenaries to get this one guy. What I'm saying is that 9/11 gave him the excuse he needed to do it. Whether Bush would have been able to find an excuse to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not happen we'll never know.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by undercover1

Kin

The invasion of Iraq led by George W happened because W wanted the invasion and take down of Hussain. You're dreaming if you think if Clinton had taken Osama the Iraq war would never have happened.

If you believe what you said....you simply don't know your history and haven't read books by people inside the W administration and the speeches these neocons made during the Clinton years about the need to take Hussain out.

Of course there were people in BOTH parties that believed Saddam needed to go. Just as Clinton (yes, the subject of this thread himself) believed that Saddam had Chemical Weapons.

After the first Gulf war, with Saddam left in power, Saddam didn't change his ways. He started a second ethnic cleaning campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in the South. This led to us enforcing "no-fly" zones over these areas of Iraq under Clinton.

He also massed several divisions of troops on Kuwait's border and threatened to re-invade Kuwait on at least TWO occasions. This led to us having to keep large numbers of military personnel and equipment in the region in case Saddam decided to carry out his threats. He tested our "no-fly zones" numerous times, massed troops on the Kuwaiti border, continued to kill Kurds and Shiites with abandon and yes, by the way, Osama used our troop presence in the region as an excuse to attack us on 9/11.

What many also don't know (or maybe choose to have selective memory about) is this:
Prior to the invasion the CIA sent "SAD" (Special Activities Division) teams along with U.S. Special Forces personnel into northern Iraq. (Operation Viking Hammer)
They were sent in to take on an Al-Qaeda offshoot known as "Ansar-al-Islam", a known terrorist organization with Al Qaeda ties. During the battle with this group near Sargat, a suspected chemical lab was located. This lab contained traces of deadly toxins ricin and botulinum and was the only lab of it's type located. Before anyone says the CIA was "lying" about the tests, personnel from left leaning MSNBC conducted their own tests with the same results as reported here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/...r-toxins-iraq/
Also located at the camp were biological weapons suits to protect against these agents, anti-dote injectors for chemical weapons and manuals on how to produce chemical weapons.
Members of "Ansar-al-Islam put up quite a bit of resistance before artillery and long range 50 cal sniper weapon systems got the best of them.

Bottom line.....even if Bush didn't like Saddam for plotting to kill his father, Saddam was certainly stupid enough to give plenty of reasons for more people than just Bush to want him removed from power. The killing of the Kurds, Shiites, allowing an Al-Qaeda offshoot (Ansar-al-Islam) to set up shop there, massing his troops on the Kuwaiti border, violating the no-fly zones and allowing terrorists to attempt to produce biological/chemical weapons....all plenty of reason for many people to want to seek a regime change in Iraq at the time.

[kingorpawn]

I agree with everything DT said. Plus who knows if Saddam would have lasted another 10 yrs. He lived a shitty life. Every 4 hrs he had to move to a separate location when he slept. He had a christian doctor because he didn't trust the muslim doctors. I found that one funny. His health probably wasn't that good. I wouldn't surprised if one of his kids killed him. We can speculate all we want, but what happen, happen. And last anybody that thinks Obama won't do the same is mistaken. Obama is as much capable of starting another war as Bush was, maybe worse.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

Obama is as much capable of starting another war as Bush was, maybe worse.

You are going to have to provide something more concrete than an gross assumption on your part to make me believe that Obama is more likely than GW to start a war for the expressed purpose of locating weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed? Then spend 7 1/2 years searching for those wmd's at a cost of $1 trillion and 4500+ American lives and never locate the first wmd!

I don't believe we have ever had another POTUS that would do anything as foolish as what GW was guilty of doing, much less Obama!

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by bigtex

You are going to have to provide something more concrete than an gross assumption on your part to make me believe that Obama is more likely than GW to start a war for the expressed purpose of locating weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed? Then spend 7 1/2 years searching for those wmd's at a cost of $1 trillion and 4500+ American lives and never locate the first wmd!

I don't believe we have ever had another POTUS that would do anything as foolish as what GW was guilty of doing, much less Obama!

I never said it was for the "expressed purpose of locating weapons of mass destruction". An example would be that Obama has ordered more Drone attacks into countries we are not at war with than Bush did. He's deported more illegals than Bush did.

What makes Obama dangerous is people saying that he doesn't have the courage to do something. Obama will go out and try to prove his critics wrong.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

I never said it was for the "expressed purpose of locating weapons of mass destruction". An example would be that Obama has ordered more Drone attacks into countries we are not at war with than Bush did. He's deported more illegals than Bush did.

What makes Obama dangerous is people saying that he doesn't have the courage to do something. Obama will go out and try to prove his critics wrong.

I will give consideration to change my previously stated position when I see Obama strut his stuff across the flight deck of the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, while wearing a Naval Aviator's flight suit and then giving a speech seen and heard around the world, with a huge MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner hanging overhead.

Without question, GW wanted the history books to recognize him as a "Wartime President." In my estimation, a few "drone attacks" pales in comparison!

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by bigtex

You are going to have to provide something more concrete than an gross assumption on your part to make me believe that Obama is more likely than GW to start a war for the expressed purpose of locating weapons of mass destruction that no longer existed? Then spend 7 1/2 years searching for those wmd's at a cost of $1 trillion and 4500+ American lives and never locate the first wmd!

I don't believe we have ever had another POTUS that would do anything as foolish as what GW was guilty of doing, much less Obama!

BigTex, with all due respect.....you're not being serious with your above quote? Maybe your hate for GW got the best of you before you wrote that.

Let's take Lyndon Baines Johnson.....how about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? You know, the false attack the Johnson administration staged in order to justify sending combat ground troops into Vietnam. How about 58,000 Americans killed, almost 1,000,000 Vietnamese and 177 Billion dollars which by today's standards would be damn near a trillion dollars.
Are you honestly saying that the intel was not fudged to justify that war? That old politicians didn't play loosely with young men's lives? That the reasoning was any more solid than our reasons for going into Iraq.

I can understand that some of the posters here don't like or downright hate Bush. Let's not start changing history though by saying no other President has ever marched us down this road. It's happened more than a few times in our nation's history.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Let's take Lyndon Baines Johnson.....how about the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Point well taken on Gulf of Tonkin, I stand corrected! No doubt, G of T was a historic foreign policy mistake made by an American President from another generation (almost 50 years ago). The point I was trying to make with my original post was to counter kingorpawn's ridiculous assertion that "anybody that thinks Obama won't do the same is mistaken. Obama is as much capable of starting another war as Bush was, maybe worse."

As for kop's claim that Obama "is as much capable, maybe worse" of starting another war as Bush was, there is absolutely nothing Obama has done (including the targeted Drone attacks) that could possibly justify an assertion that he is more capable of starting an Iraq type mistake. Trying to say Obama is "maybe worse" than Bush in the war starting arena is not much different than saying: since the Green Bay Packers lost two games this football season, they are "as much capable" of losing all of their games as the 2008 Detroit Lions were when they went 0-16.

[DTorrchia]

I'll have to agree with you on that one BigTex. It's exactly Obama's hesitation to go to war that I believe will allow Iran to fulfill it's nuclear weapons ambitions. But that's another story and one we probably don't agree on.

As far a Clinton is concerned, I simply don't see him as any more of an effective President than the ones who've come along since his last term.

The sad truth is that other than Reagan, you'd have to go back to Kennedy to find an effective leader with strong ideals and the will to see them carried out. Prior to Kennedy I'd go as far back as Teddy Roosevelt.

True leadership at the Presidential level is something this country has seen little of over the the past few decades.

[Asian Ann]

Funny pics. Thanks.

Ann

[RALPHEY BOY]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Of course, what's not to miss from Clinton's times? ...




All of these attacks carried out under Clinton's watch. Why? Because he showed his cowardice and aversion to utilizing our military from the very beginning of his Presidency. It was open season on the USA and it's interests around the world as far as terror organizations were concerned.

I cant find the exact quote but since Clinton was to busy getting his dick sucked by a fat girl,, Bin Laden kept attacking the US and its interests due to Clinton doing nothing about it...
Hence 9-11, Bin Laden figured US would sit on their hands..

obviously Osama was wrongo bongo...
two in the head, you know he is dead!!!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

The sad truth is that other than Reagan, you'd have to go back to Kennedy to find an effective leader with strong ideals and the will to see them carried out. Prior to Kennedy I'd go as far back as Teddy Roosevelt.

If you are just judging on foreign policy expertise, I would say that George H.W. Bush had stronger credentials than Ronald Reagan. I understand that is also something that you and I will not agree upon. I believe the end of the cold war was more a result of an internal collapse of the Soviet empire, more so than something orchestrated by the Reagan Administration. I strongly believe that no matter who would have been President at the time, (GHWB, Clinton or GW) the Soviet Union would have collapsed!

[eahand]

.