Originally posted by Red1998SVT: JaTo, all those nifty quotes from Democrats prove just one thing: they were doing their best to demonstrate our resolve to contain Saddam.
Most, even in the light of their full verses take on a MUCH stronger note than just simple containment...
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:They show that Clinton administration officials and leading Democrats were fully aware of the potential danger posed by Saddam, and were not going to drop their guard even for a moment. They show that, in concert with other UN countries, the Democrats were positioning us well to make Saddam back down.
BS. Gutting the CIA's budget and killing Middle-Eastern HumInt showed that Clinton flat-out didn't get what we were facing with Saddam. Hussein bilked billions out of the UN, all the while illegal equipment made it's way into Iraq.
Back down? This is perhaps the most laughable and absurd doctrine I've witnessed in this thread so far.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:You seem to be trying to use those quotes for a very different purpose. You seem to be saying those quotes show that the Clinton-era Democrats were just as hawkish as the Bush-era neo-cons. That is a completely unwarranted assumption.
I'm simply putting them forth to cure the memory loss that seems to occur during this partisan circle-jerk of "Blame Bush". The selective memory that a number of you show is simply putrid. Our intel on Hussein didn't change an extraordinary amount from the last years of the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. What did change was our patience, due to our concerns of 9/11. The fact that you insist on curtaining this event off and refuse to even address valid and rampant concerns that existed across party lines and around the world is beyond reckless, especially since it serves as one of your core crutches on this topic.
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:Just look at how different the context was when those quotes were made (mostly the 1990s). Those quotes were made in the context of a worldwide cooperative effort to force Saddam into compliance. The entire UN was threatening war against Saddam then, to force him back in his box. Those Democrats were speaking on behalf of almost every civilized person in the world when they threatened military action.
BS, again and again. Hit the UN's website and read up on the resolutions that were put in front of Hussein until 2000.
None, up until UN 1441, plainly stated strong and unencumbered language that could be "taken to task".
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:By contrast, Bush's threats were not in cooperation with any sort of worldwide effort to force Saddam to back down. Quite the opposite. Bush's threats were just token warning of a long-planned, unprecedented, nearly unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a nation that had no significant ability to attack us.
1)With France, Germany and Russia backing out for purely financial and political reasons at the 11th hour, and in light of our security concerns after 9/11, invasion was the only viable choice. UN inspections had all the hallmarks of an ongoing failure. You act as if, given the intel, it would have been a WISE choice to give the Iraqi regime the benefit of the doubt. Knowing what we know today, I would have definitely done this, but only knowing what we knew then:
NO WAY IN HELL.
2) "Long Planned"? Yes, in that the Pentagon under the Clinton administration built a number of attack scenarios that were lifted and expounded upon when the UN met with failure after failure in their weapons inspection process.
3) "Significant Ability"? Who in their right mind ever mentioned any concern about Iraq's conventional might after we charbroiled the bulk of their military machine in '91? Our rampant concern and fear revolved ENTIRELY around chem/biochem ability and nuclear aspirations,
Originally posted by Red1998SVT:Why do you pretend not to see the distinction between those Clinton-era Democrats' wise cooperation with virtually the entire UN, and Bush's reckless decision to blow off the UN and most of our allies and go to war almost entirely alone?
Why can you NOT see that Chirac has been an ALLY of Hussein since the '70s? Why do you refuse to even address any of the financial ties and government loans that Germany and France propped Iraq up with? Why do you refuse to even touch evidence that Iraq had all but bought out the Security Council vote with France?
What I'm hearing is that as long as we are sucking up to France (Chirac) and Germany (Schroeder now or Kohl at the time), then it's labeled as "cooperation". When we intend to take proactive measures due to massive security concerns and where we failed to act on what was starting to take shape as actionable intel just months earlier (i.e., 9/11), and we STRONGLY wished not to have any sort of repeat, you call it a "reckless decision". This is still despite evidence that the current Democratic candidate considered more than adequate for invasion.
The parallels I can draw between this line of thought and what Neville Chamberlain pulled in the '30s are endless.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
