Bush is worse than Clinton

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bunghole' date='May 26 2005, 11:45 PM']  
I see your ninja and raise you one...
[right][post="96802"][/post][/right][/quote]


Post whore.

[Guest BengalBacker]

I've posted this before, and I'll probably post it again.

I started to make just the relevant parts bold, but it's all relevant. This speech was made in December of 1998. What changed between the time Clinton made this speech, and the time we attacked? Saddam continued to say fuck you to us, and then we had 9/11.

Doesn't matter that Saddam wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. That event made it obvious that we couldn't stand around with our finger up our ass anymore, just threatening to do something.

Doesn't even matter if they didn't find WMD's. Saddam had every chance to prove he didn't have them, but he wanted everyone to think he did.

I distinctly remember Bush telling Saddam a couple of days before we attacked, we're coming to get you motherfucker. A reporter asked, If Saddam gives up power and leaves the country, will you still attack? Bush said fuck no. Get his sorry ass out of there and let us do real inspections, and we're cool. Saddam said fuck you, so we went in and kicked his ass.

All of the fallout we're dealing with now would have had to been dealt with at some point anyway. Do you wait until the situation is so dire that you're backed into a corner, or do you confront the problem on your terms? Some think we should have waited for permission from France. Fuck France, fuck the UN, and fuck Saddam.

Nobody wants war. We all wish everyone would just play nice. The world doesn't work that way. Never has, never will. There are no "do overs" in history, and none of us will ever know for sure if this was the right course of action. Intelligent, reasonable people will debate it forever. We can't say "what if" with any degree of certainty what the results might have been. Some might think if we hadn't attacked, eventually the whole world would join hands and sing cum baya. Others might think that Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons and started Armageddon.

What pisses me off, is the people who undermine our chances at the most succesful conclusion possible. What's done is done, where do we go from here? What purpose is served by reports like the Koran being flushed? What difference does it make if a porn star is attending a White House function? Is a picture of a female soldier with a leash around a prisoner's neck proof that our President is Evil?

I know our government isn't full of saints. I know Bush isn't the smartest person in the world.

I also know our government isn't full of demons, and Bush isn't the equivalent of Hitler or Stalin that people make him out to be.

I just wish to god (if there was a god) that everyone would stop the partisan bullshit on both sides, and start worrying more about what's best for their family, their country and the world. Stop helping to convince the world that America is evil. We aren't. WE ARE AMERICA. You and me. (unless you're a damn Canadian)

I'm going to stop now, damn it.



[b]Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.[/b]

[whodey319]

im sure every democratic president and congressman has eaten dinner with Ted Kennedy at least once and he murdered a girl for christs sake then his family basically bought his freedom. Anything wrong with that, or since he isnt a republican we cant say these things.

[|Bunghole|]

Great post BB, and out of the mouth of Clinton...does anyone else see the foreshadowing of the war that was to come with Bush? By this account, it was practically laid in his lap...

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='May 26 2005, 10:05 PM']I've posted this before, and I'll probably post it again.

I started to make just the relevant parts bold, but it's all relevant. This speech was made in December of 1998. What changed between the time Clinton made this speech, and the time we attacked? Saddam continued to say fuck you to us, and then we had 9/11.

Doesn't matter that Saddam wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. That event made it obvious that we couldn't stand around with our finger up our ass anymore, just threatening to do something.

Doesn't even matter if they didn't find WMD's. Saddam had every chance to prove he didn't have them, but he wanted everyone to think he did.

I distinctly remember Bush telling Saddam a couple of days before we attacked, we're coming to get you motherfucker. A reporter asked, If Saddam gives up power and leaves the country, will you still attack? Bush said fuck no. Get his sorry ass out of there and let us do real inspections, and we're cool. Saddam said fuck you, so we went in and kicked his ass.

All of the fallout we're dealing with now would have had to been dealt with at some point anyway. Do you wait until the situation is so dire that you're backed into a corner, or do you confront the problem on your terms? Some think we should have waited for permission from France. Fuck France, fuck the UN, and fuck Saddam.

Nobody wants war. We all wish everyone would just play nice. The world doesn't work that way. Never has, never will. There are no "do overs" in history, and none of us will ever know for sure if this was the right course of action. Intelligent, reasonable people will debate it forever. We can't say "what if" with any degree of certainty what the results might have been. Some might think if we hadn't attacked, eventually the whole world would join hands and sing cum baya. Others might think that Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons and started Armageddon.

What pisses me off, is the people who undermine our chances at the most succesful conclusion possible. What's done is done, where do we go from here? What purpose is served by reports like the Koran being flushed? What difference does it make if a porn star is attending a White House function? Is a picture of a female soldier with a leash around a prisoner's neck proof that our President is Evil?

I know our government isn't full of saints. I know Bush isn't the smartest person in the world.

I also know our government isn't full of demons, and Bush isn't the equivalent of Hitler or Stalin that people make him out to be.

I just wish to god (if there was a god) that everyone would stop the partisan bullshit on both sides, and start worrying more about what's best for their family, their country and the world. Stop helping to convince the world that America is evil. We aren't.  WE ARE AMERICA. You and me. (unless you're a damn Canadian)

I'm going to stop now, damn it.
[b]Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike
CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.[/b]
[right][post="96811"][/post][/right][/quote]





VERY well said.


[img]http://www.bellevue.org/clientimages/20902/Clap2aw.gif[/img]

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='May 26 2005, 09:21 PM']Probally no more than you'd watch Cat's WMD documentary.  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]
[right][post="96724"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

He wont even respond to my posts with the UN Resolution and documentation after he posted all that crap about the UN not doing anything as soon as i start posting facts and thing that disprove what he says he just ignores them like they dont exist like most libs... i think its the party plan...

[Guest bengalrick]

off of BB's post (excellent post btw):
[quote]When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.[/quote]

[quote]Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.[/quote]

if you put Bush's name by this statement, the anti-bush folks would be calling this a crock... this is amazing that Clinton said he was going to do something, then backed off... then was spit in the face again, but he is praised as a good president for doing not a damn thing... Bush is currently fighting for us, and standing up for us, but he is made fun of...

all i can say is thank you Bush for standing up for me, and fuck you Saddam... i say his punishment should be to let him go on a corner of iraq, in his underware, while we have a loud announcement taht Saddam Housain has been let free, and nobody will be charge if he becomes... "missing"...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='whodey319' date='May 26 2005, 11:57 PM']im sure every democratic president and congressman has eaten dinner with Ted Kennedy at least once and he murdered a girl for christs sake then his family basically bought his freedom.  Anything wrong with that, or since he isnt a republican we cant say these things.
[right][post="96823"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

wow great point... but we don't have much to stand on ther, b/c what the hell does the democratic party stand for... it sure as hell ain't family values...

i believe in family values, but this doesn't piss me off... like homer said earlier, if your going to bitch about something, pick something better...

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 26 2005, 07:05 PM']Either Family Values are important or they are not. They can't be important 1 day and 5 yrs later not important. IMO you can't pick and choose.
You can go to Mary Carey.com and check out her values if you like. or e-mail ??
to mary@marycarey.com any questions you'd like--How bout are you going to the WH on 6-14-05?
If I get a chance I'll ask this weekend-you wouldn't believe me if I said she was going so find out for yourself if you want to know the truth. If she's not going to the WH,there will be those on here that beat their chests again and talk proudly of family values. Make a STAND now .Are they important or not?-let's don't wait til after 6/14. If money  is more important to W than the family values he has campaigned about-he's a hypocrit.
I guarantee that the religious right have already made up their minds(they're not going to waver,make excuses,change the subject)-IF Mary is at the WH the $hit will hit the fan.
Check out her family values,she mentions her friend....both are blondes.
[right][post="96702"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

no, its not important... like it has been said, you seem to be surprised that politicians are greedy, lie to us, and are all about money... duh!! no shit they are...

i saw an article that seemed repitable... she is going to be there... like i said, oh well...

who cares what her family values are? she isn't in the administration... like whodey brilliantly said, Ted Kennedy is our the Democratic party... he calls the president a lier, yet he killed a woman... does the democratic party stand for murderers now? find a better topic, b/c this is just showing your true colors...

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 27 2005, 10:47 AM']no, its not important... like it has been said, you seem to be surprised that politicians are greedy, lie to us, and are all about money... duh!! no shit they are...

i saw an article that seemed repitable... she is going to be there... like i said, oh well...

who cares what her family values are? she isn't in the administration... like whodey brilliantly said, Ted Kennedy is our the Democratic party... he calls the president a lier, yet he killed a woman... does the democratic party stand for murderers now? find a better topic, b/c this is just showing your true colors...
[right][post="96883"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

U know what the funniest thing is they all claim there were no resolutions no reasons to invade iraq but we post the links to What clinton said and UN documents and they just shut up...... Wont respond because all there theroy's go right out the fucking window and all they are left with is saying bush sucks.. bush is evil... no logic... just retoric and people who cant admit when they are wrong...

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='May 26 2005, 11:05 PM']I just wish to god (if there was a god) that everyone would stop the partisan bullshit on both sides, and start worrying more about what's best for their family, their country and the world. Stop helping to convince the world that America is evil. We aren't. WE ARE AMERICA. You and me. (unless you're a damn Canadian)
[right][post="96811"][/post][/right][/quote]

Well, backer, you and I will never share the same political religion, but, "Amen" to this. A certain amount of "partisanship" is healthy, imo, but it ought be of the constructive kind, and not related to superfluous side issues. Some of us think that the current administration is the embodiment of what Eisenhower warned against in his Farewell Address, [url="http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm"]section IV in particular[/url], others do not.

That Clinton is a smart man, but also a vacillator and a philanderer, is subject to criticism, just as Bush is subject to criticism for his particular derangements. And, as you said, not everyone plays by the rules in this world. The trick is, how do we stand firm, and yet not debase our nation?

Oh, and we should have been more diligent during the War of 1812 and taken over Canada.