Ah The Glory Days Of The Clinton Admin

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.

the intelligence, in and of itself, is beside the point. it's what was done about the intelligence that matters.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.

That's not true Melon. Several countries agreed, and that is evidenced by the fact that those countried attacked with us.
 
80sU2isBest said:


That's not true Melon. Several countries agreed, and that is evidenced by the fact that those countried attacked with us.



firstly, i'm Irvine. ;)

anyway, yes, this "coalition of the willing."

garbage. it is not evidence in any way, shape, or form that they agreed with us that the intelligence spelled out a "clear and present danger" to the USA (or London, or Paris, or wherever).

many went along with us because we were going to do it whether they liked it or not. we paid Turkey, what, $34B to let us keep troops they and they still refused? most sent an absolute bare minimum of troops, and many countries that supported the action (like, say, The Marshall Islands) were simply trying to curry favor with the Bush administration.

and let's compare this "coalition" (don't forget Poland!!!) to what Bush Sr and Jim Baker were able to assemble in 1991.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think all countries were in agreement as to the available intelligence.

they did not all agree as to what action was appropriate in response to this intelligent.

i think it's safe to say that, while all mentioned countries could say, "yes, we believe, based upon the intelligence we have, that this is the situation." however, only ONE country thought a war was the correct response to this situation. only ONE country thought that SH and Iraq posed a clear and present danger (sorry, a "grave and gathering danger") to the US. only ONE country thought invasion was the solution to this country. and now, only ONE country has lost essentially all credibility.

the intelligence, in and of itself, is beside the point. it's what was done about the intelligence that matters.

There was more than one country involved in the invasion.
 
Is there a rule preventing a previous President from becoming vice-President?

Why does the President have a spokesperson come out every day and say what the President thinks and believes?

How come it seems that it is easier to get an audience with the Queen of England than the President? Our PM gets interviewed in the back of cars and hallways sometimes.

Just wondering, I'm an ignorant Canuck.

:wink:
 
Dreadsox said:


There was more than one country involved in the invasion.



and they all had different motivations.

agreeing with the US on whether or not the intelligence justified a pre-emptive strike was probably not much of a consideration for those few (by comparison to 1991, *very* few) countries that did send troops.

gaining favor with a new American administration at the very beginning of a potential 8 years in power was probably of much greater importance.

still, most of the deaths have been Americans.

i suppose we should feel good about that?
 
trevster2k said:
Is there a rule preventing a previous President from becoming vice-President?

Why does the President have a spokesperson come out every day and say what the President thinks and believes?

How come it seems that it is easier to get an audience with the Queen of England than the President? Our PM gets interviewed in the back of cars and hallways sometimes.

Just wondering, I'm an ignorant Canuck.

:wink:



1. no, i don't think so
2. all politicians have press secretaries -- from the most junior member of congress to the President. generally, the WH spokesman answers questions every single day, and it is generally accepted that the President is too busy to prepare for a press conference every single day. however, most Presidents do have press conferences, frequently, and take questions from reporters; Bush is a notable exception in that he rarely speaks to the press.
3. the president is different from a Prime Minister. my understanding is that, at least in the UK, the PM is the head of whichever political party is in power, and government is done mostly through coalition building. it's a slower process, but perhaps more thorough. by contrast, the President is in charge not of a political party but of the executive branch of the government (the others being the legislative and the judicial). he weilds greater power within the US than the PM does within the UK. i think there's a tradition of viewing the office of the Presidency as somewhat above the rest of Congress, and you'll notice that reporters usually stand when a President enters the room, and this is not true of the PM (from what i understand).

also, i think it's a mistake to view the President of the US as the equivalent of any other head of state. sorry if that sounds arrogant, but i do think it's true. no other man on earth wields the power he does, and this makes him a great target for assassination. i would imagine that no reporter could walk up to Bush and interview him (as you say they do with the Canadian PM) is because access to Bush is restricted due to safety concerns (we do have a history of presidential assassinations).



but i was just an english major. any political scientists want to add more?
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:



i suppose we should feel good about that?

Please...tell me that I am not reading too much into that....

You are not implying that I feel good about that are you?
 
Past presidents who have served 8 years are not eligible. They have to be able to serve. Bush the father could. Ford could. Carter could.
 
Dreadsox said:


Please...tell me that I am not reading too much into that....

You are not implying that I feel good about that are you?



i suppose what i meant was that at least non-Americans aren't being killed (in large numbers) because of mistakes made by the Bush administration. i am not implying that you feel good about Americans dying, but perhaps we should be greatful that we're reaping what we're sowing and not getting too many others (besides all those tens of thousands of Iraqis) killed?

that might be very callous of me. i'll have to think about it.

i think i was just reacting to the idea that because there was more than one country that was part of the invasion, that the invasion was therefore done by a coalition.

it wasn't a coalition in any sort of meaningful sense. this isn't to discount the sacrafices made by Italians, Poles, and Japanese soldiers; but it is to discount any notion that this was some sort of international effort akin to 1991.
 
Thanks for info everyone. I totally forgot about the assassination threat to the President in regards to his inaccessability.
 
Dreadsox said:
Past presidents who have served 8 years are not eligible. They have to be able to serve. Bush the father could. Ford could. Carter could.

You know, that makes sense. But I don't recall seeing anything that specifically states who cannot be a vice-president. In fact, I don't even know that term limits apply to vice-presidents - the 22nd amendment only refers to presidents.

Interesting...
 
financeguy said:


Seemingly not in America. Clinton faced impeachment procedings. Bush has not. But I live in hope.

If Bush had been a Democrat he'd have been impeached about 50 times by now, but then again the current crop of Dems aren't very smart.
 
phanan said:


You know, that makes sense. But I don't recall seeing anything that specifically states who cannot be a vice-president. In fact, I don't even know that term limits apply to vice-presidents - the 22nd amendment only refers to presidents.

Interesting...

I will try and find info for you....but I am almost 100% sure that if you cannot fulfill the rules to be President...you cannot be the VP>
 
Dreadsox said:


I will try and find info for you....but I am almost 100% sure that if you cannot fulfill the rules to be President...you cannot be the VP>

Yeah, certainly seems logical. I was just surprised I couldn't find anything online that specifically referred to it.
 
verte76 said:
I want Clinton back. Seriously. I do.

Me, too.

Clinton diddled an intern; so what.

George Bush is fucking the entire country (and territories beyond).

And Clinton did not get us into a nearly insoluble military conflict in a foreign country by twisting the facts, issuing different ultimatums under he landed on one that worked, ignoring the Geneva Accords, etc.
 
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.

I don't think that it matters that Clinton did or did not have sex with any number of women or men (as long as they were of legal age).

Terrorism did occur while Clinton was in the oval office; the trade center bombing, African embassy bombings, Khobar Towars, USS Cole, the Oslo War.

The nuclear agreement from 1994 with North Korea was really a failure and has not prevented the North Korean regime from advancing its development of nuclear weapons.

He was not an awful president, he did do quite a few things right but also made what are in retrospect significant mistakes.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.

Yes. Saddam was an evil ruler. But he didn't provide any threat to the USA. Why would we go to war with them? There are other evil rulers in the world. And why go to war when we did? Why didn't we go to war in 2000 or 2001 or anytime prior to when we did. He was still an evil ruler then. It's interesting that we went to war while 9/11 sentiment was still high, but the President's approval rating started to fall :hmm:

The fact is...Saddam was a bad ruler....but he didn't do anything that was worth going to war with them. If Saddam were still in power right now, none of our soldiers would be dead.
 
Dreadsox said:



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........
I still try to figure out what for evidence Powel did present to the VN in ( inluding all those pictures )
 
Rono said:
I still try to figure out what for evidence Powel did present to the VN in ( inluding all those pictures )

You and me both....:huh:
 
A_Wanderer said:
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.

I don't think that it matters that Clinton did or did not have sex with any number of women or men (as long as they were of legal age).

Terrorism did occur while Clinton was in the oval office; the trade center bombing, African embassy bombings, Khobar Towars, USS Cole, the Oslo War.

The nuclear agreement from 1994 with North Korea was really a failure and has not prevented the North Korean regime from advancing its development of nuclear weapons.

I have typed these same things in here before too many times...

great summary
 
unosdostres14 said:


Yes. Saddam was an evil ruler. But he didn't provide any threat to the USA. Why would we go to war with them? There are other evil rulers in the world. And why go to war when we did? Why didn't we go to war in 2000 or 2001 or anytime prior to when we did. He was still an evil ruler then. It's interesting that we went to war while 9/11 sentiment was still high, but the President's approval rating started to fall :hmm:

The fact is...Saddam was a bad ruler....but he didn't do anything that was worth going to war with them. If Saddam were still in power right now, none of our soldiers would be dead.

Can you name other rulers that invaded three other countries illegally currently in office?

Can you name oher rulers in violation of UN Securoty Council Resolutions currently in office?

Can you name other rulers that REPEATEDLY violated their CEASE FIRE agreement currently in office?

People forget that was a cease fire agreement, not a formal ending of the Gulf War.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom