Ah The Glory Days Of The Clinton Admin

[80sU2isBest]

it said "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHIN THE U.S."

this memo is common knowledge and was circulated in august 2001.

What in the world was he to do about it? The only thing he could have done in response to this vague, unspecific threat, that might have prevented 9/11 would be to declare martial law and send military fighters over every inch of the United States. Wouldn't people have loved having their freedoms taken away?

 

[randhail]

Dude, read what I wrote. I clearly outlined earlier in the thread what the "failure to protect his people" was, and it wasn't Monica. The failure to protect his people came when he allowed his feds to murder a 13 year old, fleeing boy and unarmed woman at Ruby Ridge, and the when he allowed his feds to attack a compound full of innocent women and Children that eventually resulted in most of their deaths. It was also "failure to protect his people" when he didn't allow his soldiers in Somalia to fire their weapons, even in defense.

So are you saying that Clinton should have personally been at Ruby Ridge with a bullhorn shouting out orders? Those situations went bad but to say he allowed it to happen is a stretch. Much the same way everything that goes wrong now can't be blamed completely on Bush.

 

[melon]

And yet occasionally ignored federal law when it came to his own people; the people of this nation whom had sworn to protect.

Funny how putting a human face on someone makes it harder to accept killing them, right? In the 1990s, we had the threat of domestic terrorism, which culminated with Oklahoma City. The threat, in my view, started after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which allowed for fanatical viewpoints in the media with no requirement for balance (hence, why AM radio is still a bastion of fanaticism) and grew with the advent of the internet.

Anyway, if we applied the Bush Doctrine to Oklahoma City, we should have just gone in and blew up every last one of those compounds...but we won't, because they're Americans and we have humanized them.

Iraqis and Afghanis, on the other hand, who cares if we blow them up? They're not real anyway, are they? That's what postmodernist philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, would probably say. He wrote a very provocative text called "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place," and literalists, obviously, jumped all over it. The point of the text was not to deny that it happened, but to argue that, to the average American, the war wasn't real; it was merely a series of TV images for the American public and mostly a wargame for the leaders, as it relied on air raids and intelligence over physical combat.

One of the points that Baudrillard tries to make with this book is that what's considered real is now simply images of what is real: we see "a masquerade of information: branded faces delivered over to the prostitution of the image, the image of an unintelligible distress." This is a challenge to the tendency of many people to absolutely believe what they see on their screens. This point also works in with another of Baudrillard claims that the war was so heavily edited when it was shown on television that what Americans saw wasn't even close to the real war. He arrived at this conclusion after talking with many soldiers about what really happened on the ground.

As such, when it comes to Americans being attacked or killed, we are genuinely incensed, while when it comes to foreign civilian casualities, we generally don't care. "Collateral damage" for the cause of "freedom." After all, they don't really exist anyway.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Clinton received the blame for Somalia, but as a friend of mine (who is rather into Mogadishu) aptly puts it, "It was a political football left over from the Bush administration."

As I said in a previous post, it wasn't the fact that troops were sent into Somalia that cheesed me; it was the fact they were forbidden to fire their weapons. That order was given by the Clinto Admin.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I simply stated a fact. Liberals don't seem to care about Clinton's affair with Monica, or even that he lied to a federal grand jury about it. Am I wrong? Does any perosn who identifies themself as a liberal care about these things?

I don't care about the affair; I care about the lie. Instead of lying he should have looked the American people in the eye and said it was none of our damn business whether or not he had an affair.

 

[randhail]

As I said in a previous post, it wasn't the fact that troops were sent into Somalia that cheesed me; it was the fact they were forbidden to fire their weapons. That order was given by the Clinto Admin.

How can in one breathe you get on Clinton for letting the feds fire at Ruby Ridge and at Waco and the next get on him for giving the no shoot order in Somalia? Seems a little hypocritical.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I don't care about the affair; I care about the lie. Instead of lying he should have looked the American people in the eye and said it was none of our damn business whether or not he had an affair.

Exactly.

And speaking of lies...does anyone who identifies themselves as conservative care about the fact that Bush lied in order to bring us to war?

 

[80sU2isBest]

So are you saying that Clinton should have personally been at Ruby Ridge with a bullhorn shouting out orders? Those situations went bad but to say he allowed it to happen is a stretch. Much the same way everything that goes wrong now can't be blamed completely on Bush.

But they are blamed completely on Bush, by several people here. Just yesterday, someone told me that Bush was responsible for the horrible things that occurred at Abu Gharib (sp?), even though he didn't order, condone the actions and was even prosecuting those who did it.

Clinton's appointee, Janet Reno, gave the orders to storm at Ruby Ridge, and it resulted in those deaths.

 

[unosdostres14]

How can in one breathe you get on Clinton for letting the feds fire at Ruby Ridge and at Waco and the next get on him for giving the no shoot order in Somalia? Seems a little hypocritical.

Hypocrisy is the Republican way!

"I am anti-big government. I'm all for states rights!"

(Picks up newspaper and sees news about homosexuals getting married)

"We must have a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage! This cannot be left upto the states!"

 

[80sU2isBest]

Exactly.

And speaking of lies...does anyone who identifies themselves as conservative care about the fact that Bush lied in order to bring us to war?

Most conservatives, like me, believe that he acted on what may have been wrong intelligence from several sources.

Frankly, I don't think that the intelligence was wrong. I believe Saddam did have WMD and that he had them moved into Syria in the weeks before the war. Even Charles Duelfer wouldn't say that he's sure I'm wrong - he saw and even commented on satellite photos that showed large tucks moving large amounts of "unidentified material" from Iraq to Syria.

 

[u2bonogirl]

Ive come to the conclusion that politicians lie all the time

 

[randhail]

But they are blamed completely on Bush, by several people here. Just yesterday, someone told me that Bush was responsible for the horrible things that occurred at Abu Gharib (sp?), even though he didn't order, condone the actions and was even prosecuting those who did it.

Clinton's appointee, Janet Reno, gave the orders to storm at Ruby Ridge, and it resulted in those deaths.

I hear what you're saying. I guess it depends on the individual's view of accountability and political beliefs. A Bush backer will say what you said, he didn't directly condone the actions whereas a Bush basher would say he had to have known, he's the president. Same goes for Ruby Ridge and almost anything other hotspot event in history, it's all personal opinion.

 

[deep]

I don't have time to read this nonsense now.


Clinton is reponsible for a small amount of body fluids while in the Whitehouse.


This Administration is responsible for drenching the walls in blood for personal gain.

 

[80sU2isBest]

How can in one breathe you get on Clinton for letting the feds fire at Ruby Ridge and at Waco and the next get on him for giving the no shoot order in Somalia? Seems a little hypocritical.

Think about it. It's not hypocritical at all.

Clinton gave the order in Somalia not to fire - at all. These soldiers were in a place which was very hostile to American involvement, and yet they weren't given the right to defend themselves?

I didn't say he should've told the feds at Ruby Ridge not to fire if they were fired at. But the 13 year old boy was fleeing - and was shot in teh back. The woman was unarmed and shot in the head. Neither of those cases was self defense.

As for Waco, the ATF should have never been given the orders to assault the compound full of women and children in the first place; they should've arrested Koresh in town, away from the others. They originally said Koresh hadn't gone to town in 3 weeks, but we later learned that wasn't true.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't have time to read this nonsense now.


Clinton is reponsible for a small amount of body fluids while in the Whitehouse.

and the death of the fleeing boy and unarmed woman at Ruby Ridge, and the many women and children deaths at Waco...

 

[randhail]

and the death of the fleeing boy and unarmed woman at Ruby Ridge, and the many women and children deaths at Waco...

It sucks that this happened. Do you think Clinton was happy how it turned out? I don't think he was giving high fives to his cabinet after either one of these events but when you are the President, shit happens. It does for everyone who has ever been President. Find me a President who left office with no blood on their hands, it will be a pretty hard task.

 

[joyfulgirl]

and the death of the fleeing boy and unarmed woman at Ruby Ridge, and the many women and children deaths at Waco...

This may be a first but I agree with you about Waco.

 

[80sU2isBest]

It sucks that this happened. Do you think Clinton was happy how it turned out? I don't think he was giving high fives to his cabinet after either one of these events but when you are the President, shit happens. It does for everyone who has ever been President. Find me a President who left office with no blood on their hands, it will be a pretty hard task.

I know that, but I posted what I did in direct response to deep's assertion that the only thing Clinton was guilty of was sex.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Ive come to the conclusion that politicians lie all the time

Of course they do, just not under oath before a federal judge and grand jury.

 

[80sU2isBest]

This may be a first but I agree with you about Waco.

And some people say miracles don't happen...

 

[Dreadsox]

The immorality of sending troops into an illegal war, being responsible for the death of thousands upon thousands and all of this based on a lie...this dwarfs beyond measure any private personal sex behaviour. If there is any justice in this world, Bush should have been impeached ages ago.

I am curious...this is the 2nd time I have seen this called an illegal war.

The President was given the authority to wage war by congress legally.

The United Nations has passed resolutions legitimizing the war.

Exactly how was it illegal?

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't care about the affair; I care about the lie. Instead of lying he should have looked the American people in the eye and said it was none of our damn business whether or not he had an affair.

That is where I stand on it....

and I could care less if he lied on camera....and said what you mentioned above.

However he lied under oath during a legal proceeding...

And sadly....that is why I believe the impeachment was justified...

 

[Dreadsox]

If Bush was in office for LESS than a year, why wouldn't Clinton be as responsible or more for 9/11.

I fail to understand that...and I hold Bush responsisble.....

But this was NOT the first attack on our soil....

the trade center was attacked during Clinton's watch....

and if the Presdient were not busy lying in court...we may have done more than bomb an asprin factory.

 

[randhail]

I am curious...this is the 2nd time I have seen this called an illegal war.

The President was given the authority to wage war by congress legally.

The United Nations has passed resolutions legitimizing the war.

Exactly how was it illegal?

The Constitution states that only Congress has the ability to declare war. A formal declaration of war has never been issued by Congress.

 

[Dreadsox]

The Constitution states that only Congress has the ability to declare war. A formal declaration of war has never been issued by Congress.

They granted him the power under the War Powers Act......go back and look...Hillary and the DEMS voted for it....

-------------------------

The lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Boston claiming that congress did not "declare war" was shot down by a Federal Judge....it was legal.


-------

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[randhail]

Thanks for the lesson, you saved me a trip to the library. Maybe you can find me some WMDs to justify the war too.

 

[Dreadsox]

Thanks for the lesson, you saved me a trip to the library. Maybe you can find me some WMDs to justify the war too.

Your welcome...anytime....been debating the legality of it in here for the better part of three years.

Nice punchline....

Here is link about the court suit...

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/caab/articles/federallawsuit.htm

 

[80sU2isBest]

Thanks for the lesson, you saved me a trip to the library. Maybe you can find me some WMDs to justify the war too.

The intelligence agencies of Israel, Russian, Great Britain and posisiblly Turkey provided such information to Bush. Whether that intelligence was wrong or not may never be truly discovered.

 

[Dreadsox]

The intelligence agencies of Israel, Russian, Great Britain and posisiblly Turkey provided such information to Bush. Whether that intelligence was wrong or not may never be truly discovered.

Don;t forget France and Germany also believed that they had WMD. German intelligence predicted nukes by 2006 if I am not mistaken....but hey...I am not willing to waste more of my time looking for the facts........

 

[Infinity]

I simply stated a fact. Liberals don't seem to care about Clinton's affair with Monica, or even that he lied to a federal grand jury about it. Am I wrong? Does any perosn who identifies themself as a liberal care about these things?

First, I'd like to say that i'm neither a Democrat or Republican.

Yes, Clinton should not have lied to the jury. But it was wrong for this matter to be brought to public in the first place.

However, this is nothing compared to W. Bush's lies. The Iraq war is filled with lies. I remember in late 2002, before Bush sent in weapons inspectors to Iraq, he said that if they find weapons, and yet Iraq doesn't disarm, there will be a war. Bush was confident that he will definitely find weapons. However, the weapons inspectors found absolutely no weapons. But Bush wanted to go to war anyway. Therefore, before the war started, Bush changed his story, instead of making Iraq disarm, he said that Saddam Hussein must step down as leader within 3 days, or else the U.S. will attack. He also added another reason why the U.S. should go to war: Iraq/Al-Qaeda/9-11 relations. By giving this reason to the American people, many people supported the war.

So first Bush said that the U.S. will attack Iraq if they don't disarm. But when he found they have no weapons, he added 2 more reasons: the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator and that Iraq has relations with Al-Qaeda/9-11. Now, out of these 3 reasons, the first and third ones are bullshit. But Bush needed these 2 lies to get approval of the American people to go to war.

The pro-war people argue that it is good that we went into war even though Iraq had no weapons or a connection with Al-Qaeda/9-11, because Saddam was such an evil dictator and it is good that we removed him from power. For people who believe that the war is a good idea for this one reason, it is still the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time for numerous reasons:

1) Iraq was never a direct threat to the U.S.

2) There are other nations that have evil dictators AND nuclear weapons AND are threats to the U.S. (North Korea) So we should focus on North Korea and not waste our time, money, and troops on Iraq.

3) Besides North Korea, another direct threat to the U.S. is Al-Qaeda. We should have sent more troops into the Afghan-Pakistan border. President Musharaff is not allowing U.S. troops into Pakistan. However there is a region in Northern Pakistan that is not controlled by the Pakistani government. Rather, it is controlled by radicals who support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and are against the U.S. Osama Bin Laden is probably in this region or near. Now Bush should have worked with the Pakistan government and focused on trying to get U.S. troops into this region of Pakistan only.

4) Iran is a much more dangerous country then Iraq. Before 9-11, it let many of the hijackers pass through it's country while knowing who they were. Also, we all know that Iran HAS nuclear weapons as opposed to Iraq.

5) Bush had no exit strategy for the Iraq war. More people have died after he declared that major combat is over in Iraq.

6) The cost of this war is enormous. Not only do we have to pay right now, taxpayers will be paying for the war for many years to come, money that we could have used to pay for other things. The cost of the war is defintely driving down the American economy. Check out this link: http://costofwar.com/

7) As of today there have been 1,913 coalition deaths in Iraq, 1,728 of them Americans. The death toll of the Iraqis themselves has been ignored, but as of today there have been an estimated 22,507-25,499 Iraqi deaths. I feel bad for all the soldiers, they were brave enough to risk their own lives for their countries. But I even feel worse for these more then 20,000 Iraqis which include many men, women, children (including many new-born babies), because what did these people do to put their lives at risk and end? I remember the Bush administration saying that they will only be attacking political buildings of the Iraqi government, and will avoid the civilian population.



There'e something to think about.