Bush 'routinely ignoring Blair'

[Elok]

Ned, that was in the support-the-president jingoism orgy leading up to the invasion, verdad? Freaking KERRY "voted for the war before he voted against it" back then, because the current political climate was such that most people wanted to appear cooperative towards the President.

[Drake Tungsten]

but he'd have had no reason to concoct that gibberish about WMDs

For the record, that "gibberish" was the consensus view in the years before the Iraq War. IIRC, Clinton is on the record in generally agreeing with that view...

[BlackCat]

I thought that you wanted a serious discussion, but since you call for Oerdin, I guess that you don't want that.

Please tell me wich politician that hasn't listned with selectional ears to what intelligence says. They all hear what they want to hear. Another thing is that intelligence may say one thing, but why should a politician follow that if he thinks that is the wrong direction ?

[DaShi]

Because he has at least half a brain?

[BlackCat]

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

What facts has you that support this claim ?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DaShi
Because he has at least half a brain?

[Elok]

I didn't "call for" Oerdin, I merely noted that he's better at rehearsing Bush's faults than I am. And for all that he's got an unhealthy, Captain Ahab-ish obsession, I think he's right about GWB at least.

Does somebody else want to compile a list of the evidence of Bush waging war against reality? There's plenty of it, but I've procrastinated too much already tonight and I have work to do.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat


What facts has you that support this claim ?

Because a different person than Bush. What facts do you have to believe that he wage war as ridiculously as Bush did?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Because a reasonably smart person would consider the fact they could be wrong in the face of opposing evidence.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


What facts has you that support this claim ?

Actually, that's what Clinton said in a recent interview with Mike Wallace. He said he supported the effort to bring democracy to the ME as the way forward. But he said he would have done it in a different "way" than Bush.

Couple that with his and his secretary of state's claims that they wanted to go to war against Saddam in '98, you can see that the only differences between Clinton and Bush with regard to Iraq is the way Bush went about it.

[Ned]

But, since Clinton never explained what he would have done differently, much of what he said is either hindsight or partisan bickering, or both.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DaShi


Because a reasonably smart person would consider the fact they could be wrong in the face of opposing evidence.

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

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DaShi


Because a different person than Bush. What facts do you have to believe that he wage war as ridiculously as Bush did?

Breach of UN sanctions by saddam.

[Chemical Ollie]

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. She said that circumstances had changed since 9/11.

---

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.

[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.