Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on February 18, 2004, 07:20:30 PM
-
Remember this?
Do you remember this speech?
On 17 February 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from that speech include the following comments:
The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .
But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.
Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.
Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .
-
It's obvious that Bush had already used his infuence as Governor of Texas to pressure U.S. intelligence to fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraq.
-
6 years and 1 day...that would put me in grade 4...so i was probably trying to figure out long division at the time...
-
WHISTLE IN THE DARK – “Be cheerful or optimistic in a situation that doesn’t warrant cheer or optimism. It is a great temptation to try to cheer oneself up by whistling or singing in a dark and lonely place. Sigmund Freud, in ‘The Problem of Anxiety’ (1925), had a thought on the practice: ‘When the wayfarer whistles in the dark, he may be disavowing his timidity, but he does not see any the more clearer for doing so.’ The notion that one should whistle in difficult circumstances to show that one is not concerned or frightened can be found in Robert Blair’s ‘The Grave; (1742): ‘The Schoolboy…Whistling aloud to bear his Courage up.’” “The Dictionary of Cliches” by James Rogers (Ballantine Books, New York, 1985).
-
Actually, I remember it exactly.
Too bad everyone I argue with doesn't recall it at all...
-
Why back then I was calculating how many more days I would have to put up with the Philanderer in Chief. Of course now I just refer to him by his proper title...
IMPEACHED ex-president Clinton
-
clinton was a liar, i thought we already determined that. So why did bush believe a liar?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
clinton was a liar, i thought we already determined that. So why did bush believe a liar?
I've never thought of Bush as being very bright. The same as I view anyone else that believed anything Clinton said.
-
Clinton was successful in using diplomacy and the UN in getting rid of WMD in Iraq. He just didnt know it. What was the problem again?
Oh ya. Dubya invaded using WMD as an excuse an you all bought it. Cause your stupid.
-
Sure, I remember that Rip. It was cool to have a prez with the ability to read. Each of the above points were good points. However, I don't see the concept of invading Iraq on false pretenses.
But of course, Bush is just your every day, garden variety lying weasel about state security. Clinton on the other hand was a clear threat to the country by forgetting where he last parked his Johnson.
Thank god Bush was available to save us all from "Johnsonitis." Too bad Clinton wasn't here to save us from political monsters. Oh well, maybe next time. :)
curly
-
Clinton was successful in using diplomacy and the UN in getting rid of WMD in Iraq. He just didnt know it. What was the problem again?
:(
:p
:)
:lol
You're kidding right? Please say you're kidding...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
:(
:p
:)
:lol
You're kidding right? Please say you're kidding...
Why consider it kidding? Did or does SH have WMD?? Should we credit Bush for SH not having WMD??
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Sure, I remember that Rip. It was cool to have a prez with the ability to read. Each of the above points were good points. However, I don't see the concept of invading Iraq on false pretenses.
But of course, Bush is just your every day, garden variety lying weasel about state security. Clinton on the other hand was a clear threat to the country by forgetting where he last parked his Johnson.
Thank god Bush was available to save us all from "Johnsonitis." Too bad Clinton wasn't here to save us from political monsters. Oh well, maybe next time. :)
curly
If only a poor memory or faulty zipper had been Clinton's only fault Curly. The little incident with the Chinese and campaign funds is a little harder to overlook. With all those pardons at the end of his reign I guess I should just be thankful that Charles Manson isn't back on the street.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If only a poor memory or faulty zipper had been Clinton's only fault Curly. The little incident with the Chinese and campaign funds is a little harder to overlook. With all those pardons at the end of his reign I guess I should just be thankful that Charles Manson isn't back on the street.
Not to mention the fact that he lost tract of the nuclear launch codes "football". Also, he refused to be interupted from golf when a national security issue needed his attention.
Clinton was one big screw up and an asslick all rolled into one fantastic lying, poll riding, anti-military package of spooge.
[edit] I forgot dog killer [edit]
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I've never thought of Bush as being very bright. The same as I view anyone else that believed anything Clinton said.
Didn't Bush go to Harvard Business School? What school did you go to AK?
-
There's plenty of proof that going to school does not automatically make one smart. I think it even makes some stupid.
Don't get me wrong, I'll vote for Bush, but only because he's better than the alternative. I'm not claiming to be smarter than him but then I'm not the president.
Since you asked, I went to many schools while I was in the military, including the University of Maryland, Ball State, and others.
-
Why consider it kidding? Did or does SH have WMD?? Should we credit Bush for SH not having WMD??
Clinton Spent 8 years in Iraq with the UN. HE LAUNCHED FULL MILITARY OPERATIONS TWICE! Yet at the end of it, the iraqi's were still jerking their chain around.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Clinton Spent 8 years in Iraq with the UN. HE LAUNCHED FULL MILITARY OPERATIONS TWICE! Yet at the end of it, the iraqi's were still jerking their chain around.
yes yes.. perhaps so! but at the end of it was SH attacking fellow countries? Was SH attacking america in our land? Die SH posess WMD?? It seems clinton was a success in handling SH.. For certain Clinton left with SH having much less power than say when Bush senior left office...
-
Originally posted by kappa
It seems clinton was a success in handling SH..
Hindsite is 20/20.
-
I was a Clinton supporter, but then he touched me in ways that made me feel uncomfortable.
Bad touch! Bad touch!
Give me my wallet back!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If only a poor memory or faulty zipper had been Clinton's only fault Curly. The little incident with the Chinese and campaign funds is a little harder to overlook. With all those pardons at the end of his reign I guess I should just be thankful that Charles Manson isn't back on the street.
We've both been around a long time. Eisenhower was somnolent; JFK liked the ladies; LBJ was power-hungry; Nixon was paranoid; Carter was inflexible and excessively prissy; Reagan was a pathological liar who would lie when the truth served better; Bush Sr. wasn't too bad (in hindsight) although he struggled with the truth when there were political implications; Clinton liked the ladies, struggled with the truth when there were political implications, but was the brightest pres we've had since Roosevelt.
And now we have good ole Bush Jr, a man with no morality, a man who has no convictions (probably because he's too dumb to have one), a man who demonstrably avoided serving his country, a man who has lied to the American public repeatedly concerning the events in Iraq and last but not least, he has an all but convicted corporate criminal as his running buddy.
It is very confusing when you speak of Clinton's political shenanigans --- I keep comparing him to his predecessors and successors and he keeps looking smarter and more honest. Isn't that a hoot? Clinton and honesty in the same sentence, and yet he deserves the title "honest man" as much if not more than any other recent president.
All of the gabble you guys seem to believe reminds me of Adelai Stevenson running for the presidency against Eisenhower: Stevenson gave a great speech at a university (don't remember where) and an enthusiastic supporter jumped to his feet and shouted "Atta boy, Adelai, every thinking person will vote for you!" Stevenson quickly replied "But, I need a majority!"
The voting public is all to easily persuaded by cheap campaign tricks and rarely gives any matter a discerning look. The voting public believes what it is told because politicians understand our "hot buttons." They know how to appeal to base instincts.
They completely understand the issues of religion, abortion, full civil rights for all Americans and so on.
So, when you say The little incident with the Chinese and campaign funds is a little harder to overlook, somehow you forget to place things in perspective. You forgot the behavior of his predecessors and by golly, some politician has punched a hot button for you. ;)
curly
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hindsite is 20/20.
I remember thinking during the late 90s with the stupid overflights and isolation of Iraq that the US would piss or get off the pot. Well be carefull what you ask for I guess.
-
Curly, I can't argue that politicians aren't crooked. I guess it just comes down to which way they are bent. I probably favor the ones that lie to accomplish the goals I favor. Bush is letting me keep more of the money I earn and kicking some bellybutton in the middle east. If he needed the pretext of imminent threat to get past all the bleeding hearts to establish a stronghold there then I can look the other way. If he did it for personal gain, as did Clinton in so many of his abuses of power, then he should be tarred and feathered.
I still think it's possible for an honest person to rise to the presidency, though there isn't much evidence to support my likely naive belief.