Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

[jbg]

What? Are you trying to say that Bush didn't try to link Iraq with al-qaeda/terrorism/9-11???

Not to 9-11.

[Canadian Blue]

I believe Bush linked Al Qaeda with Iraq, not 9/11 specifically. Whatever one may have thought of the invasion of Iraq an immediate pullout would result in a catastrophe for the Kurds, Iraqis, and the Western world in general.

[M.Dancer]

You actually ask two questions which is a little confusing.

1) who led the more effective admin

2) In twerms of historiuc ranking.....

I think that in terms of who will be mentioned more by historians it will certainly be Bush, for ill or for good.

As for an effective admin, both are equal although Bush was dealt the harder hand even if you omit Iraq.

[gc1765]

Not to 9-11.

He linked Iraq to al-qaeda. Do you think he was referring to that OTHER al-qaeda? I mean, the one that wasn't made famous by 9/11? The non-violent al-qaeda? By linking Iraq to the criminals, he is indirectly linking it to the crime. That's like saying that someone has ties to the mafia but is not involved in organized crime

[Canadian Blue]

You do realize that Al Qaeda is about more than just 9/11 don't you? I would hope that we would go after the whole organization simply because of the kind of agenda they have.

[jbg]

I believe Bush linked Al Qaeda with Iraq, not 9/11 specifically. Whatever one may have thought of the invasion of Iraq an immediate pullout would result in a catastrophe for the Kurds, Iraqis, and the Western world in general.

Good point, and welcome back (I haven't seen you on for a while).

[gc1765]

You do realize that Al Qaeda is about more than just 9/11 don't you?

Of course, but ask the average American what comes to mind when you say "al-qaeda" and I'd bet the vast majority would say 9-11/terrorism.

[Canadian Blue]

Of course they would say terrorism/9-11 because of what happened in New York City. But the threat we face from Al Qaeda was present before 9/11, one only has to look at all of the terrorist bombings in the middle east and Africa to see the threat they posed. The war on terror was meant to include all terrorism, not just the people who were directly involved with 9/11. If we had gotten the perpetrators yet failed to smash the organization we would have learned nothing from the terrorist attacks which occured in New York.

[Oleg Bach]

You do realize that Al Qaeda is about more than just 9/11 don't you? I would hope that we would go after the whole organization simply because of the kind of agenda they have.

Silly - Bush led a more effective administration - through conflict great wealth is generated to that parasitic elite. Bush is still desperately trying to top off the bank accounts of his friends and handlers though this push for war with Iran - I guess you can only fool most of the people most of the time - but not all the time - Bush was highly effective. He did what he was hired to do- make money for those that already have tons through oil and weapons....so he will be known as the greatest president ever by 1% of the population that profit though theft and murder..merry christmas.

[gc1765]

Of course they would say terrorism/9-11 because of what happened in New York City. But the threat we face from Al Qaeda was present before 9/11, one only has to look at all of the terrorist bombings in the middle east and Africa to see the threat they posed.

Of course they posed a threat, but what does that threat have to do with Iraq???

The war on terror was meant to include all terrorism, not just the people who were directly involved with 9/11.

Perhaps you could show me how Iraq was involved in terrorism against the U.S.? Which terrorist acts against the U.S. were committed by Iraq?

If we had gotten the perpetrators yet failed to smash the organization we would have learned nothing from the terrorist attacks which occured in New York.

Again, what does this organization have to do with Iraq?

[Oleg Bach]

Of course they posed a threat, but what does that threat have to do with Iraq???

Perhaps you could show me how Iraq was involved in terrorism against the U.S.? Which terrorist acts against the U.S. were committed by Iraq?

Again, what does this organization have to do with Iraq?

Opium = money ---- oil - food - all addictive things generate money - all great weath is generated out of enslaving the weaker parts of man..Bush will continue to kill on behalf of all those who's greed and contempt for humanity have no bounds..war for fun and profit - that's the bottom line - there is no ideology here - NONE!

[Guest American Woman]

I believe Bush linked Al Qaeda with Iraq, not 9/11 specifically.

The Bush administration most definitely did try to link Iraq with 9-11.

[Canadian Blue]

Silly - Bush led a more effective administration - through conflict great wealth is generated to that parasitic elite. Bush is still desperately trying to top off the bank accounts of his friends and handlers though this push for war with Iran - I guess you can only fool most of the people most of the time - but not all the time - Bush was highly effective. He did what he was hired to do- make money for those that already have tons through oil and weapons....so he will be known as the greatest president ever by 1% of the population that profit though theft and murder..merry christmas.

I also see that those who are infatuated with the Saddam regime are still popping up all over. However beyond the rhetoric I'll need abit more information before supporting a pullout which could create a much worse situation in Iraq.

http://www.slate.com/id/2083202/

http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/

However despite the reasons for invading Iraq I would continue to argue that an immediate withdrawal would create a catastrophe in the region. To cede that nation to Islamofascism would put the Kurdish population in peril.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[Sulaco]

Of course, but ask the average American what comes to mind when you say "al-qaeda" and I'd bet the vast majority would say 9-11/terrorism.

I should hope so.

What is amusing is the simplisme your argument implies. In your view if Al Quaeda brings to mind 9-11 and Iraq, Al-Quaeda, then 9-11 was caused Iraq in most minds.

That assumes stupidity for the vast majority of Americans. That assumption says more about you than about anything else. I doubt the Administration made the same silly assumption.

But - let's be even a little more nuanced. If Iraq was supporting Al-Quaeda, in the aftermath of 9-11 they, arguably, endorsed 9-11. In that sense Iraq was tied to 9-11.

Edited December 10, 2007 by Sulaco

[xul]

No...it was not a mistake, but a continuation of US foreign policy for the region.

I agree that suppressing Iran is a continuation of US foreign policy. But I meant that, if a new recruit throws a grenade to his enemy, he wounded one of his target's leg but also hurt one of his arm, can be considered as a mistake.

9/11 presented an opportunity to extend and expand long existing Iran-Iraq counterbalancing and destabilizing policies.

9/11 was not the only opportunity America had. Another President Bush, I mean the father of this President Bush , had ever had a good opportunity to knock down Sadaam when American troop dispeled Iraqi army out of Kuwait. But why he did not do it? I think it was because he is wise than his son.

while reducing the presence in Saudi.

I understand how inconvenience it is to American soldiers living in a country with ban of casino and unhooded women.

Sorry, it's only a joke.

I understand how eagerly America government wants to find or make a Arab country as the same as UK or AUS but it is ony a dream not reality.

(Liberal UK and AUS PMs agreed.)

These guys do not agree or disagree anything. They just wanted to hitchhike the American triumph train but they also made a mistake. Now they are managing to jump off the train.

Edited December 10, 2007 by xul

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree that suppressing Iran is a continuation of US foreign policy. But I meant that, if a new recruit throws a grenade to his enemy, he wounded one of his target's leg but also hurt one of his arm, can be considered as a mistake.

Uhhh...OK..important safety tip for the infantry noted. It was also a mistake to fly an F-8 into an EP-3, but China got the plane anyway.

9/11 was not the only opportunity America had. Another President Bush, I mean the father of this President Bush , had ever had a good opportunity to knock down Sadaam when American troop dispeled Iraqi army out of Kuwait. But why he did not do it? I think it was because he is wise than his son.

No...history already scorns Bush Sr. for his timid policy of coitus interruptus.

I understand how inconvenience it is to American soldiers living in a country with ban of casino and unhooded women.

Sorry, it's only a joke.

And a bad joke at that.

I understand how eagerly America government wants to find or make a Arab country as the same as UK or AUS but it is ony a dream not reality.

Really...see Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait. Big Mac with fries readily available.

These guys do not agree or disagree anything. They just wanted to hitchhike the American triumph train but they also made a mistake. Now they are managing to jump off the train.

All were returned to office after their "mistakes". Those who were "wiser" lost the elections.

[gc1765]

In your view if Al Quaeda brings to mind 9-11 and Iraq, Al-Quaeda, then 9-11 was caused Iraq in most minds.

I'm guessing English is not your first language, so I'll forgive your atrocious grammar, but what the heck are you trying to say here?

That assumes stupidity for the vast majority of Americans. That assumption says more about you than about anything else. I doubt the Administration made the same silly assumption.

Perhaps you have a better explanation for why Bush used the so-called "connection" between Iraq & al-qaeda as justification for the invasion of Iraq???

But - let's be even a little more nuanced. If Iraq was supporting Al-Quaeda, in the aftermath of 9-11 they, arguably, endorsed 9-11. In that sense Iraq was tied to 9-11.

And how exactly was Iraq supporting al-qaeda?

[bush_cheney2004]

....And how exactly was Iraq supporting al-qaeda?

Here ya go...from the US Congress in October 2002..references to Iraq and Al Qaeda "terrorists" noted in bold:

Public Law 107-243

107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against

Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

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 Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 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'';

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 resolution 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 United States 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 (1990) authorizes

the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security

Council Resolution 660 (1990) 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 (1991), repression of its civilian population

in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688

(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations

in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution

949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq

Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress 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 Resolution 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 of 1998 (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 interests 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 <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military

Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

[jbg]

I agree with the invasion of Iraq. However, I do not think, just because of Iraq's general support of AQ, that Iraq had a role in 911.

[Canadian Blue]

I think that one thing we can agree with is that the war and subsequent occupation was administered with incompetence. The failure of the administration to listen to its top generals probably resulted in the disintigration of Iraq, however I have some hope with Rumsfeld gone that things will turn around. As well one can only hope that the Democrats adopt a coherent plan, it is my hope that Biden wins, but this seems to be more of a pipe dream.

[bush_cheney2004]

I agree with the invasion of Iraq. However, I do not think, just because of Iraq's general support of AQ, that Iraq had a role in 911.

I am sure that Iraq had no direct role in 9/11.....but it was on the US's ass-kicking list long before that. Hell, even Canada helped to strangle Iraq to death. President Clinton bombed them for days in 1998. So President Bush is the bad guy for doing what should have been done 12 years before?

[gc1765]

Here ya go...from the US Congress in October 2002..references to Iraq and Al Qaeda "terrorists" noted in bold.

It's hard to take this report seriously when it says things like this:

development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions

...but I'll give it a shot anyways:

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;

And? Members of al-qaeda are probably living in the U.S. too, so...umm...the U.S. should invade itself?

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist

organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and

safety of United States citizens.

Such as?

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;

There they go linking Iraq to 9/11...

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on

terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist

groups

Such as?

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[/b], 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;

And what does this have to do with Iraq? Or are they trying to imply that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11??

[xul]

Uhhh...OK..important safety tip for the infantry noted. It was also a mistake to fly an F-8 into an EP-3, but China got the plane anyway.

In my opinion, the handling of China government in the event of F-8/EP-3 was not a mistake, it's really stupid.

If I was them, I would not send a F-8 but a Y-8 with 20t broadcaster equipment and broadcasting some pacifists' sermon on all frequencies all the time. I guess no American spy plane would want to come again next time.

Now Chinese government has learnt a lot from their earlier mistakes and has improved their strategy from then on. But what is that American government has leant from Iraq? Making a new war to Iran?

No...history already scorns Bush Sr. for his timid policy of coitus interruptus.

I think history will not blame him because he is correct. It is to earlier to say history has judged his decision. It was those guys who dreamt a easy triumph in Iraqi blamed him.

And a bad joke at that.

Perhaps it was not a joke. It's just what those common soldiers want. You would not expect every American soldier have the same ambitions as their president.

Really...see Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Kuwait. Big Mac with fries readily available.

The whole Big Mac is not as big as Iraq and Iran.

I guess you would forgot---all of these American friends ruled by kings, not democracy. And the Bush administration's democracy paradigm is making American headache.

All were returned to office after their "mistakes". Those who were "wiser" lost the elections.

All were returned to office before public knew them have made a big mistake. And where are them now?

Edited December 11, 2007 by xul

[Oleg Bach]

In my opinion, the handling of China government in the event of F-8/EP-3 was not a mistake, it's really stupid.

If I was them, I would not send a F-8 but a Y-8 with 20t broadcaster equipment and broadcasting Alcoran on all frequencies all the time. I guess no American spy plane would want to come again next time.

Now Chinese government has learnt a lot from their earlier mistakes and has improved their strategy from then on. But what is that American government has leant from Iraq? Making a new war to Iran?

I think history will not blame him because he is correct. It is to earlier to say history has judged his decision. It was those guys who dreamt a easy triumph in Iraqi blamed him.

Perhaps it was not a joke. It's just what those common soldiers want. You would not expect every American soldier have the same ambitions as their president.

The whole Big Mac is not as big as Iraq and Iran.

I guess you would forgot---all of these American friends ruled by kings, not democracy. And the Bush administration's democracy paradigm is making American headache.

All were returned to office before public knew them have made a big mistake. And where are them now?

Both Clinton and Bush are social climbing idiots...they will do anything and say anything for a pat on the head by their handlers and for what they percieve as power and glory - and wealth - just a couple of losers - surrogates.

[Sulaco]

I agree with the invasion of Iraq. However, I do not think, just because of Iraq's general support of AQ, that Iraq had a role in 911.

But by lending general support to AQ , Iraq endorsed the actions of AQ on 9/11. Much like any given Virginia Hillbilly who may have aided Eric Rudolph, Iraq was absically saying to Al Quaeda - we support you. That is unacceptable.

So while there is no evidence whatsoever of an direct connection between Iraq and 9/11, there is a connection - and a pretty glaring one.

What I don't understand is why it is so difficult to see this connection.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Sulaco