Author Topic: Hillary (Read 2264 times)

NUKE · « **Reply #45 on:** January 03, 2004, 04:53:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gyro/T69
"what if the strikes by Clinton DESTROYED the WMD and their production facilities"

I would think Bill would have wanted to take credit for it, if that was the case. Something he never claimed was accomplished.

Bill never was one to take credit for or care about anything other than doing the right thing for his country.

He was an unselfish, great leader.

I would compair Bill Clinton to Churchill.

Airhead · « **Reply #46 on:** January 03, 2004, 05:14:22 PM »

Hmmm.... NUKE, are you OK? Your pupils are dialated and you aren't blinking...

You're scaring me.

NUKE · « **Reply #47 on:** January 03, 2004, 05:16:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Airhead
Hmmm.... NUKE, are you OK? Your pupils are dialated and you aren't blinking...

You're scaring me.

Im never okay, how dare you say that!!!!!

How could I be okay when I live with the constant stench of cat urine in my house?

Kieran · « **Reply #48 on:** January 03, 2004, 06:43:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NUKE
Bill never was one to take credit for or care about anything other than doing the right thing for his country.

He was an unselfish, great leader.

I would compair Bill Clinton to Churchill.

BWUAHAHAHAHAHA!

Thrawn · « **Reply #49 on:** January 03, 2004, 07:13:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Gyro- exactly. The same intelligence agencies were used in both cases, and it is clear Clinton believed strongly enough there were WMD capabilities in Iraq. Why else would he have attacked them with cruise missiles? If Bush followed the same intelligence agencies and entered Iraq, why is it this is war for oil? Either they were both right, or they were both wrong.

That's not true, the evidence that Bill based his assumptions got old. And Bush manufactured other evidence and lied about it. It's not the same at all.

By your logic.

1950+ Dwight D Eisenhower: We have evidence that the Russkies are going to take over the world.

2002 Bush: We have evidence from the 1950's that the Russkies are going to take over the world. So we's better attack them.

AKIron · « **Reply #50 on:** January 03, 2004, 07:28:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
That's not true, the evidence that Bill based his assumptions got old. And Bush manufactured other evidence and lied about it. It's not the same at all.

By your logic.

1950+ Dwight D Eisenhower: We have evidence that the Russkies are going to take over the world.

2002 Bush: We have evidence from the 1950's that the Russkies are going to take over the world. So we's better attack them.

Hmmmmm 52 years vs 2 years? Are you saying there is no difference?

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 03, 2004, 07:38:22 PM »

"That's not true, the evidence that Bill based his assumptions got old. Bush manufactured other evidence and lied about it. It's not the same at all."

I'm sure the intelligence agencies just stopped gathering information at all at some point and then pulled out the old file Bill was using when Bush became prez, right? After all, there was no point in keeping an eye on what Iraq may or may not be doing, right?

I really am amazed; I didn't know our intelligence agencies basics their intelligence briefing from what Eisenhower said in the fifties. You'd think they would update the information from time to time, like every decade or so. Thanks for the information.

Yup, NUKE your right.

Thrawn · « **Reply #52 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:35:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Hmmmmm 52 years vs 2 years? Are you saying there is no difference?

No, of course there's a differnce. Just like there is a difference between 2 years and 5 years.

Quote

Originally posted by Gyro/T69
I'm sure the intelligence agencies just stopped gathering information at all at some point and then pulled out the old file Bill was using when Bush became prez, right?[/B]

Wrong, the CIA and British intelligence's well dried up after the UN inspectors withdrew from Iraq in 1997, not when Bush became President. Both countries intelligence services were using the UN inspectors to gather intelligence. And both intelligence services warned thier respective administrations that the intelligence they had on Iraqi WMD was iffy because it was so dated. And the repective administrations decided to ignore the information for the intelligence services that they didn't want hear because it didn't fit in with thier policies.

MI-6 and CIA: We know he had WMD five years ago. It's probable that he still has them, but it's possible he doesn't because the data is old.

Blair and Bush: Iraq has WMD and can deploy them in 45 minutes.

MI-6 and CIA: WTF, that's not what we said and we don't like you twisting intelligence to suit your policies.

Kieran · « **Reply #53 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:36:27 PM »

Thrawn-

Ok, so you ARE saying there was cause for Clinton to fire cruise missiles. You are suggesting Clinton destroyed all WMD and related research. You have no problem with Clinton doing this at all, but when Bush uses virtually the same intelligence, it's bad. OK

BTW, no one went over Clinton's intelligence with a fine-tooth comb, now did they? Who's to say they didn't rely on exactly the same sources, in exactly the same manner, hm?

Kieran · « **Reply #54 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:38:17 PM »

Now you are flat-out fabricating your story. You have no idea what went on behind closed doors. You are in effect doing the very thing you are vilifying the administration for doing.

Thrawn · « **Reply #55 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:42:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Ok, so you ARE saying there was cause for Clinton to fire cruise missiles. You are suggesting Clinton destroyed all WMD and related research. You have no problem with Clinton doing this at all, but when Bush uses virtually the same intelligence, it's bad. OK

Nah, what Clinton did was just as illegal under international law as what Bush did.

Thrawn · « **Reply #56 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:43:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Now you are flat-out fabricating your story. You have no idea what went on behind closed doors. You are in effect doing the very thing you are vilifying the administration for doing.

Which part of what I said happened behind close doors?

Kieran · « **Reply #57 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:45:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Nah, what Clinton did was just as illegal under international law as what Bush did.

Well, I can live with that. It's hard to get the far left to admit that little tidbit. Somehow though the world gave Clinton a pass for it. Why do you suppose that is?

As for the closed doors, you weren't present during the briefings. That makes your conversation supposition.

Thrawn · « **Reply #58 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:50:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kieran
Well, I can live with that. It's hard to get the far left to admit that little tidbit. Somehow though the world gave Clinton a pass for it. Why do you suppose that is?

I imagine it's because some are hypocrits. For me I don't much see the point. It's not like there's any chance of Clinton being relected.

Quote

As for the closed doors, you weren't present during the briefings. That makes your conversation supposition.

Nah, my conversation is based off of open source documents, leaks and press releases from the intelligence services. But the proof is in the pudding right? Cripes. I'm suppose to go out in about 15 minutes. I imagine it will take me about an hour or so to relocate the docs. I'll hopefully post them here tomorrow evening.

Gyro/T69 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 03, 2004, 08:56:28 PM »

"MI-6 and CIA: We know he had WMD five years ago. It's probable that he still has them, but it's possible he doesn't because the data is old. "

Hmmmm so if MI-6 and the CIA could no longer get real intelligence out of Iraq they would telegraph this fact to Iraq via the pubic airways?

Or

Make this kind of statement to convince Iraq that they no longer had any intelligence gathering capabilities in their country?

Ohhhh BTW, when was it Bill when to the UN with proof of the WMDs before or after the the missle attack? I can't remember...

All I remember was a TV speech.