Bush 'routinely ignoring Blair'

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DaShi
Clinton wouldn't have started a war in Iraq.

Would it have been some random European country then?

[DaShi]

Yes, Switzilvania.

[Cort Haus]

The only difference between the illegitimacy of Klinton's war and Bush's, is that everyone knows that the Iraq war was based on lies.

As usual, Slick Willy gets away with it.

[Barnabas]

Yes, because it was true and not lies that the serbs had killed hundreds of thousands of albanians.....

[DinoDoc]

Ignoring the UN to launch an illegal war would be the point of comparison. If one cared about such things of course.

[RGBVideo]

nm

[Dr Strangelove]

Do you think we could talk Germany into going on a sympathy date with Blair?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DaShi
Clinton wouldn't have started a war in Iraq.

How do you know that ?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sandman
Is this a surprise? The sooner the 'special relationship' ends, the better.

what sort of windfall will either country gain from ending of this "special relationship?"

I'm not sure France has gained much from such willful avoidance of any sort of "special relationship".


AFAIK the "special relationship" did not require the Uk to get stuck in Iraq any more than it required them to become involed in the VIetnam war.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Yes, because it was true and not lies that the serbs had killed hundreds of thousands of albanians.....

I don't follow you. Are you actually suggesting here that Serbs had killed hundreds of thousands of Albanians, or just mocking the Clinton administration's claim?

[Elok]

Originally posted by BlackCat
How do you know that ?

We can't "know" as much, but Clinton didn't seem anywhere near stupid enough to invade Iraq. At least, not to me he didn't. He might have invaded a different country that had something halfway-resembling a plausible tie to AQ, but he'd have had no reason to concoct that gibberish about WMDs, would he? Mind you, I don't even understand why Bush bothered (aside from "he's an idjit"), so it's hard to say...

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Elok


We can't "know" as much, but Clinton didn't seem anywhere near stupid enough to invade Iraq. At least, not to me he didn't. He might have invaded a different country that had something halfway-resembling a plausible tie to AQ, but he'd have had no reason to concoct that gibberish about WMDs, would he? Mind you, I don't even understand why Bush bothered (aside from "he's an idjit"), so it's hard to say...

Not being a very big fan of bushy myself since he seems to be a religious person, I still are quite amused by those that calls him an idiot. If he really is an idiot, then it's a clear display that the political system in US is a total disaster and the best cure was covering the area with nukes. Fortunatedly, the main bulk that claims he is an idiot is people that doesn't like his policy, so no need for nuke for now.

Please expalin to me why clinton wouldn't be "stupid" enough to act on saddams violation of UN sanctions.

[Ned]

Elok, Madalyn Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State testifying before Congress in the run-up to the Iraq war, said that Clinton would have preferred to go to war with Saddam Hussein in 1998 when Saddam Hussein forced the inspectors out of Iraq, but Clinton did not do so because they could not get the support of the American people (read Republican Congress) for such a war. She said that circumstances had changed since 9/11.

Thus, your statement that Clinton would not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein is entirely unsupported by the evidence and facts. What you could say is that perhaps Clinton would have done it in a different way and may have prepared for the collapse of the Saddam régime before embarking on the invasion. But a flat statement that Clinton was not stupid enough to go to war with Saddam is just an anti-Bush slam. Nothing more.

[Elok]

? Why the hell would he waste troops on that when there were plenty of other countries with a legitimate connection to Al-Qaeda to pursue? Or, hell, if we're talking about going after dangerous mavericks with no respect for int'l. law, the DPRK is much worse. Also, Clinton was most certainly not a neo-conservative, or whatever you call someone who believes in turning other countries into democracies at gunpoint.

I call Bush an idiot because he selectively listens to his intelligence officials and other advisors depending on what he wants to hear; because he acts with absolutely no thought for the consequences of his actions; because he reacts to all criticism by sticking his fingers in his ears and going "lalalalala"; because he allows crucial reconstruction jobs to be given away in no-bid contracts with little or no supervision--well, will that do for starters? Oerdin can give the list better than I can.

[DaShi]

The better way to say is that Clinton wouldn't have gone to war in such a stupid way as Bush did.