All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The funny thing is, we now know that Clinton's Iraq policy worked. Iraq abandoned its WMD development after attacks Clinton ordered. Those -- like you -- who want to pretend that Clinton wasn't tough enough towards Hussein have the blood of 2,500 American soldiers and countless Iraqis on their hands. It's war for the sake of a political pose.

Did you read those quotes? It is clear no one thought Clinton or Bush I's policies were working. Everyone in the Clinton administration assumed that Saddam was still building WMDs right up until the end of Clinton's tenure. They knew Saddam was continuing to build them but they couldn't do anything about it.

It wasn't clear that everyone was wrong until, as you said, "they sifted through the rubble".

It didn't occur to anyone that, as Nancy Pelosi said, Saddam was "making a mockery of the Weapons Inspection Process" when he had nothing to hide. No one thought he was that crazy. Everyone was wrong.

And what made you think Clinton had a policy? The weapons inspectors left after 98 and as his wife acknowledged Saddam was doing whatever he wanted after that point in time, and Pres Clinton couldn't do anything about it. And that includes two years of the Clinton administration where they just assumed he was continuing to build WMDs.

"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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you read those quotes? It is clear no one thought Clinton or Bush I's policies were working. Everyone in the Clinton administration assumed that Saddam was still building WMDs right up until the end of Clinton's tenure. They knew Saddam was continuing to build them but they couldn't do anything about it.

It wasn't clear that everyone was wrong until, as you said, "they sifted through the rubble".

It didn't occur to anyone that, as Nancy Pelosi said, Saddam was "making a mockery of the Weapons Inspection Process" when he had nothing to hide. No one thought he was that crazy. Everyone was wrong.

And what made you think Clinton had a policy? The weapons inspectors left after 98 and as his wife acknowledged Saddam was doing whatever he wanted after that point in time, and Pres Clinton couldn't do anything about it. And that includes two years of the Clinton administration where they just assumed he was continuing to build WMDs.

"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

I read the quotes. Dude, your subject line was "Who lied?" And the answer is, not Clinton. As we now know, Clinton's containment policy worked. Under Clinton, we stopped Iraq's WMD program. Clinton adopted means commensurate to the risks -- he got it right. And you are so blinded by close to six years of shilling for Republican idiocy, to say nothing of the knee-jerk reaction to Clinton's foreign policy before that, that you simply have no idea. You're like a blind man who walks outside at noon and insists it's midnight.

Clinton's foreign policy had its flaws. This was not one of them. In the quote you posted and I repeated, he got it right.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I read the quotes. Dude, your subject line was "Who lied?" And the answer is, not Clinton. As we now know, Clinton's containment policy worked. Under Clinton, we stopped Iraq's WMD program. Clinton adopted means commensurate to the risks -- he got it right. And you are so blinded by close to six years of shilling for Republican idiocy, to say nothing of the knee-jerk reaction to Clinton's foreign policy before that, that you simply have no idea. You're like a blind man who walks outside at noon and insists it's midnight.

Clinton's foreign policy had its flaws. This was not one of them. In the quote you posted and I repeated, he got it right.

Clinton's containment policy? What containment policy? He adopted means commensurate with the risk? What means did he adopt? He didn't do anything about Saddam. He just continued the status quo. He had no choice. And what knee jerk reaction to Clinton's foreign policy? When did I ever critisize Clinton's foreign policy?

I have no knee jerk reaction. Your knee jerk reaction is: Clinton = good. Bush = bad.

Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors and there was nothing Clinton could do about it. Saddam violated the gulf war treaties but there was nothing Clinton could do about it. His only option to get Saddam back in line was to go to war - and he did not have the political capital to do that.

I have never critisized Clinton's foreign policy. I thought what he did against Serbia was brave and there was no political upside for him. If he screwed up he would get skewered and if he succeeded he wouldn't get any credit. And he did it anyway. That was an act of statesmen ship and not of politics. I thought he was right when he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan. For both Serbia and Sudan he was skewered by Michael Moore.

When W. got into office, Saddam was totally ignoring the gulf war treaty and "making a mockery of the weaspons inspection system". But there was nothing W. could do about it because he did not have the political capital to start a war. He had to continue the status quo just like Clinton had to continue the status quo.

During Clinton's administration we had total justification to go to war against Saddam but America was just not into it. And if Clinton had tried to go to war against Iraq, he would have been accused of the whole wag the dog thing.

However, after 9-11 the public's willingness to take care of our problems with military means changed, and W. used that opportunity to take out Saddam. I think Clinton and Gore would probably have done the same thing. Except the only difference now would be that if Gore (or Clinton) had gone in and there were no weapons of mass destruction the Republicans in Congress would now be screaming about Gore lying and deceiving us into war.

US foreign policy is mostly dictated by external events. It is just the political climate that makes the acts controversial. The sitting administration mostly makes the logical choice and then the opposition critisizes that because that is what the oposition does in our system. When Clinton ran against Bush I he critisized everything Bush was doing in foreign policy. From China, to Haiti to Somalia he critisized it all. And then when he got into office he kept doing exactly what Bush I was doing. He did not change one foreign policy position of the US government. When Bush II was running he critisized everything that the Clinton administration was doing, from nation building in the balkans to Iraq. But when W. got into office he continued everything the Clinton administration was doing. He did not change a thing. From the balkins to Iraq W. kept the status quo. He had to let Saddam to continue flouting the Weapons Inspectors and the Gulf War I treaty, because there was not much else he could do.

For the past twenty years the US foreign policy has been very consistent, the only people that can't see that are the ones that are so caught up in partisan politics they can't see reality anymore. And you are one of those people.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Clinton's containment policy? What containment policy? He adopted means commensurate with the risk? What means did he adopt? He didn't do anything about Saddam. He just continued the status quo. He had no choice. And what knee jerk reaction to Clinton's foreign policy? When did I ever critisize Clinton's foreign policy?

I have no knee jerk reaction. Your knee jerk reaction is: Clinton = good. Bush = bad.

Saddam kicked out the Weapons inspectors and there was nothing Clinton could do about it. Saddam violated the gulf war treaties but there was nothing Clinton could do about it. His only option to get Saddam back in line was to go to war - and he did not have the political capital to do that.

I have never critisized Clinton's foreign policy. I thought what he did against Serbia was brave and there was no political upside for him. If he screwed up he would get skewered and if he succeeded he wouldn't get any credit. And he did it anyway. That was an act of statesmen ship and not of politics. I thought he was right when he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan. For both Serbia and Sudan he was skewered by Michael Moore.

When W. got into office, Saddam was totally ignoring the gulf war treaty and "making a mockery of the weaspons inspection system". But there was nothing W. could do about it because he did not have the political capital to start a war. He had to continue the status quo just like Clinton had to continue the status quo.

During Clinton's administration we had total justification to go to war against Saddam but America was just not into it. And if Clinton had tried to go to war against Iraq, he would have been accused of the whole wag the dog thing.

However, after 9-11 the public's willingness to take care of our problems with military means changed, and W. used that opportunity to take out Saddam. I think Clinton and Gore would probably have done the same thing. Except the only difference now would be that if Gore (or Clinton) had gone in and there were no weapons of mass destruction the Republicans in Congress would now be screaming about Gore lying and deceiving us into war.

US foreign policy is mostly dictated by external events. It is just the political climate that makes the acts controversial. The sitting administration mostly makes the logical choice and then the opposition critisizes that because that is what the oposition does in our system. When Clinton ran against Bush I he critisized everything Bush was doing in foreign policy. From China, to Haiti to Somalia he critisized it all. And then when he got into office he kept doing exactly what Bush I was doing. He did not change one foreign policy position of the US government. When Bush II was running he critisized everything that the Clinton administration was doing, from nation building in the balkans to Iraq. But when W. got into office he continued everything the Clinton administration was doing. He did not change a thing. From the balkins to Iraq W. kept the status quo. He had to let Saddam to continue flouting the Weapons Inspectors and the Gulf War I treaty, because there was not much else he could do.

For the past twenty years the US foreign policy has been very consistent, the only people that can't see that are the ones that are so caught up in partisan politics they can't see reality anymore. And you are one of those people.

I thought the point of your original post was that Clinton was lying. It occurs to me that you may have been quoting Clinton to prove that Bush wasn't lying. If so, I suggest you read something more germane: Ron Suskind's recent book, The One Percent Solution. The Platonic Ideal Spanky would read that book and come back and say, "it is well and good that Presidents mislead the public about the war on terror because that is what Presidents have always done and it is how we fight these wars." You would refer to FDR, and so on. And then we would have a well-intentioned and meaningful conversation about how 9/11 changed everything and whether democracy is a good form of government for fighting wars and the extent to which we are abandoning our constitutional traditions in order to export them to countries like Iraq.

OTOH, if you were criticizing Clinton's foreign policy, I will just point out that no matter how many words you use, it is still true that when he left office Iraq had no WMD and that he found a way to make this happen short of invading and occupying the country.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
it is still true that when he left office Iraq had no WMD .

Cite to an objective factual source, please?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
it is still true that when he left office Iraq had no WMD

spanky's point is (should be?) that Clinton didn't know that, if it was true, and after 9/11 leaving Sadamm with the presumed weapons was not acceptable.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Cite to an objective factual source, please?

My recollection is that the CIA determined as much, based on the fruits of the Kay Commission, or whatever it was called. (Obviously, any true conservaitve will dismiss the CIA as a partisan opponent of the President, unless it's saying something useful.) Do you really think that's incorrect? If so, do you think:

(a) Saddam destroyed them without telling anyone after Bush took office,
(b) Saddam moved them to Syria (or co-partners in evil Iran or North Korea) before the war, or
(c) They're still there, but very well hidden.

Whichever, cite to an objective factual source, please?

eta: For a more objective source than the CIA, how about USA Today, which is so neutral it'll put you to sleep. This article suggests 41 deserves the credit, not 42.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
spanky's point is (should be?) that Clinton didn't know that, if it was true, and after 9/11 leaving Sadamm with the presumed weapons was not acceptable.

As Donald Rumsfeld said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My recollection is that the CIA determined as much, based on the fruits of the Kay Commission, or whatever it was called. (Obviously, any true conservaitve will dismiss the CIA as a partisan opponent of the President, unless it's saying something useful.) Do you really think that's incorrect? If so, do you think:

(a) Saddam destroyed them without telling anyone after Bush took office,
(b) Saddam moved them to Syria (or co-partners in evil Iran or North Korea) before the war, or
(c) They're still there, but very well hidden.

Whichever, cite to an objective factual source, please?

My recollection is that we found them; and further this recollection is supported by the disclosure of confirmation of the same by a US Senator and US Congressman last week in the Wall Street Journal.

That said my other recollection, is that [some of] the weapons were moved to Syria. this is based on assertions by General Moshe Yaalon, who, from 2002-2005, was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military and is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which assertions were to the extent that "Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started"

We all know how good Israeli intelligence is (as compared with the CIA, which Clinton eviscerated during his 8 years in office), right?

[SlaveNoMore]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As Donald Rumsfeld said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

exactly- then, Spank's 2nd question is how come Al and Hilly and Teddy were saying all that stuff in 2002 and 2003.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
My recollection is that we found them....

My posts are reality-based. I can't help you.

Others may be amused by the end of this Washington Post article from last week about a private lunch involving Condi Rice and her Russian counterpart. The Russian tweaked Rice by pretending to take seriously the proposition that Hussein had WMD:

• The two continued to squabble when Lavrov threw out a new concept -- that the new Iraqi government had to answer questions about former president Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction because last week Republican lawmakers in the United States had said there was evidence of chemical munitions.
  
  "I think it's serious," he said. "While we want to support this government, we also believe that this government has something to do to finalize the leftovers of the past, which is basically nonproliferation concerns."
  
  This line of conversation riled Rice, but once again other ministers suggested a compromise that mentioned the idea without endorsing it.

Serious conservatives do not pretend that there were WMD in Iraq when they are behind closed doors.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
exactly- then, Spank's 2nd question is how come Al and Hilly and Teddy were saying all that stuff in 2002 and 2003.

As I said, I thought Spanky was accusing Clinton of lying.

Are you going to read the Suskind book? You'd learn a thing or two.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My posts are reality-based. I can't help you.

So what you are asserting is that your recollections have more reality based credibility than a US Senator, a US Congressman and the Cheif of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces........explain to me your definition of reality based? Is your "reality" medicated or are you non-compliant?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I said, I thought Spanky was accusing Clinton of lying.

Are you going to read the Suskind book? You'd learn a thing or two.

His point was that if W was lying so were these others. Sounds to me like the book we should all be reading is