Bush 'routinely ignoring Blair'

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


The really stupid thing in the above text is that 9/11 changed the view of Iraq in the eyes of the Republican congress. But that would be like if a terror attempt by IRA would change the American view on the ETA in Spain or something.

No offense, but you really doesn't make any sense.

[Ned]

Black Cat, Chemical is trying to say that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam and the Iraq war. That, in part, is true. In part, it is not true, assuming that Saddam had chemical or bioweapons and was willing to supply them to terrorists.

BTW, there was a special on terrorism that aired on the History Channel in 2000 that was reaired just the other day. Remember, at this time, Clinton was president. Among the dire warnings given by prominent Democrats at the time was the threat that terrorists obtain these kind of weapons from Saddam or others and use them in an attack on the US.

What are we to conclude then about liberal dismissal of any connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Their position changed with presidents.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Pekka
BC, it's called loyalty. Yeah, in the real world politics it does not exist, only association by the same interests exists. But that goes to say, never trust anyone who says is your friend, because they'll turn their back on you, even if they claim to be the good guys and promise you the moon.

FACT.

I knew that you were naive, but I really didn't knew that you was that naive.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
Black Cat, Chemical is trying to say that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam and the Iraq war. That, in part, is true. In part, it is not true, assuming that Saddam had chemical or bioweapons and was willing to supply them to terrorists.

BTW, there was a special on terrorism that aired on the History Channel in 2000 that was reaired just the other day. Remember, at this time, Clinton was president. Among the dire warnings given by prominent Democrats at the time was the threat that terrorists obtain these kind of weapons from Saddam or others and use them in an attack on the US.

What are we to conclude then about liberal dismissal of any connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Their position changed with presidents.

BC or BlackCat, please

No offense, but I want CO to explain his pov, though your guesstimate isn't uninteresting

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Breach of UN sanctions by saddam.

So? What does that have to do with Clinton?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Are you for real caliming that politicians act on facts and not on their political views ?

No, I'm claiming that it's not a smart thing to do.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No offense, but you really doesn't make any sense.

Yes, he do.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ned
Chemical, if you really want to be honest, Republicans would never have backed Clinton. What changed about Iraq was not 9/11, but the presidency.

Then why didn't Bush push for war before 9/11, if the reasons were there? And why does Bush invoke 9/11 whenever he talks about Iraq and our reasons for being there?

[Drake Tungsten]

Because 9/11 made dealing with the threat of terrorism (and therefore the threat of terrorists equipped with Iraqi-made WMDs) much more urgent?

[DaShi]

This is pathetic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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.

It wasn't Republicans protesting Maddy Albright and calling her on her not answering in front of America at that foolishly called Town Hall meeting. First time in history, I think, that a popular mobilization stopped a war before it happened. Protests were so loud outside the hall that all of America could here them. Yay for my side.

And point of information, Neddie, the only inspectors Hussein forced out of Iraq were the Americans, who were thoroughly infested with CIA agents. The rest of the inspectors were pulled when Clinton launched his wag the dog bombings.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by BlackCat


BC or BlackCat, please

No offense, but I want CO to explain his pov, though your guesstimate isn't uninteresting

Good morning. Not even I can be awake 24/7.

Ned's guesstimate was correct:

Black Cat, Chemical is trying to say that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam and the Iraq war.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by BlackCat
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.

Hm,
it seems to me that Presidents are made by PR agencies and Speech writers, not by their own intelligence.

So what way would there be to keep someone who is on the one hand an idiot,
but on the other hand very popular and rich
from getting elected to be president of the United states?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Geronimo

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.

Did I say anything about a windfall? The reasons for ending the special relationship are mostly down to questions of principle. Oerdin seems to suggest that Britain should stick with America even when crackpot conservatives are running the show - a bit like the 'suffer in silence' view of marital relations.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by 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.

It wasn't Republicans protesting Maddy Albright and calling her on her not answering in front of America at that foolishly called Town Hall meeting. First time in history, I think, that a popular mobilization stopped a war before it happened. Protests were so loud outside the hall that all of America could here them. Yay for my side.

Well bully. If you guys were the reason that Clinton deferred, well so be it. But given Clinton's good relations with the Euros, the war and the aftermath might have gone a lot smoother had Clinton conducted it rather than Bush.

And point of information, Neddie, the only inspectors Hussein forced out of Iraq were the Americans, who were thoroughly infested with CIA agents. The rest of the inspectors were pulled when Clinton launched his wag the dog bombings.

True. But Saddam had no right to kick the US inspectors out regardless of his reasons or assertions.