Bill Clinton or George W. Bush?

[Sulaco]

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?

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???

And how exactly was Iraq supporting al-qaeda?

The atrocious grammar was a result of a hasty attempt to encapsulate twisted logic. To recap - you seem to be saying that:

a. In the minds of most people Al Quaeda is directly tied to 9/11

b. Bush tied Al Quaeda to Iraq

c. Therefore in the minds of most people 9/11 became directly tied to Iraq at the urging of Bush.

My point is that your underlying assumption is incorrect. Most people can think in far more nuanced terms. They are not as stupid as you assume, nor is there reason to believe Bush would assume people are that stupid. I think most would gave agreed there was no direct connection.

The reason most people tie 9/11 to Iraq is because they see that indirect connection - the endorsement of 9/11 by Iraq's harboring of Al Quaeda. And Bush was right to deploy that indirect connection as one of his arguments.

That connection is unquestionable.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Sulaco

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Okay, I understand that the concept is difficult for you to grasp (given that PM Chretien bombed Serbia without a resolution vote in Parliament), but in the USA we like to make it all fancy and legal-like for the Constitution before opening (another) can of major whup-ass on a nation like Iraq.

Regardless of any connection to Al Qaeda, real or implied, any fool can see that there was no shortage of reasons to continue the established UK/USA policy with additional mustard.

[gc1765]

To recap - you seem to be saying that:

a. In the minds of most people Al Quaeda is directly tied to 9/11

b. Bush tied Al Quaeda to Iraq

c. Therefore in the minds of most people 9/11 became directly tied to Iraq at the urging of Bush.

My point is that your underlying assumption is incorrect. Most people can think in far more nuanced terms. They are not as stupid as you assume, nor is there reason to believe Bush would assume people are that stupid. I think most would gave agreed there was no direct connection.

The reason most people tie 9/11 to Iraq is because they see that indirect connection - the endorsement of 9/11 by Iraq's harboring of Al Quaeda. And Bush was right to deploy that indirect connection as one of his arguments.

That connection is unquestionable.

Actually, I am saying that Bush tried to link al-qaeda and Iraq. I don't remember saying anything about whether Americans believed him or not, but since you brought it up, here you go...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Link

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

Link

Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?

Further, a majority of people couldn't identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran.

Link

[Topaz]

I believe there is still an coverup with 9/11 and the involvement of US citizens to help make this happen. Why you ask? Because the Taliban had turned down Cheney and the big oil companies from planning a pipeline through Afghanistan, which would included, Iran and Iraq. The US thought they had Afghanistan covered and raced to take out Hussein. This war is all about OIL and the US military build up in the Middle-East, which these "terrorists" groups are fighting against. They aren't doing the same thing as you would for your own country. The CIA created OBL and Al Queada aganst Russia and now history is repeating itself against the US. Both, Cheney and Bush tried to link al Queda with Hussein but it didn't go over with the public. Its being reported that GW has broken more laws than any other president.As the saying goes, Follow the money and then you'll know who was really behind 9/11 and it was a very rich, very large group within the US.

[Canadian Blue]

No they didn't. Most of what you said is a myth.

But I'm glad to see people who are so completely ignorant to the threat of islamofascism.

[Carinthia]

As the saying goes, Follow the money and then you'll know who was really behind 9/11 and it was a very rich, very large group within the US.

Couldn't agree more!

[Sulaco]

..... aaaaand - there goes the thread.

[Carinthia]

..... aaaaand - there goes the thread.

Whatever!

[Canadian Blue]

Follow the money and then you'll know who was really behind 9/11 and it was a very rich, very large group within the US.

Would that be the Freemason-Jewish-New World Order-Vatican-Communist-Bush family-Military Industrial Complex-United Nations-CIA-Illuminati group?

I've just combined them all because all of them have been accused of committing 9/11.

Even though I don't agree with Penn and Teller on everything, I find them to be bang on with regards to the conspiracy theorists.

Warning: Strong langauge and a good chance to offend someone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQuIhJId1JY...feature=related

But with Charlie Sheen behind you guys I'm sure you can convince the credulous. I still love how all of the people who say it's a controlled demolition are not experts in either demolitions or engineering.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Canadian Blue

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

Big headache in China too.

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

No...big "mistake" was in 2003....public made choices.....not mistake.

[xul]

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.

Unfortunately every "system" around the world were designed for favoring those who suit for them. Though each designer of them declared they were designed for "more hardworking more gain", but they were not. The reality is, with exact words, "more hardworking to change youself to suit the system more gain"......

There was a story like a joke. When I was a teenager, one of my classmate fell into "racialism". He told me, "I think white guys are better, because most Olympic champions are white guys." I "felt" he was wrong, but could not figure out which part of his conclusion was wrong. When I grow elder, I know why he was wrong-----Most Olympic champions are white guys because the Olympic game came of Europe and the rules of Olympic games were writen by white guys, so they more suit to white athletes. If a Asian could modify the rules of games, he might put 100 posts on a soccer field so every player had to dodge agilely to avoid any collision, he would ban all body contacts and use handgun duel instead of boxing... , then we would see more "Asian faces" on the medal podiums.

As a individual, we usually feel powerless in front of a "system". Using a slightely modified actor's line in the movie Transformer might describe the circumstance---"Before our life began, there was a system. We don't know where it came from, but it only holds the power, to create or ruin our lives..."

So changing ourselves to suit the system is wise. If a person chose his life to change or fight a system, he may be great like Lincoln or Washington, but also may be failing like President Bush----essentially, his mistake was not making a decision of invading Iraq, but was trying to change the system of the region or even the world that has existed hundreds years in the world.

Edited December 12, 2007 by xul

[JerrySeinfeld]

Hmmm....dead Americans, Iraqis, Serbs, Albanians, Rwandans, Sudanese, Somalis, and others might disagree.

Ummmm....you really don't get what that means? When Clinton lied, no one died because it. When Bush lied, thousands upon thousands died because of his lies-- and they continue to die, with no end in sight.

That Clinton is listed as "dishonest" in this poll is a joke. That Bush is credited with "strong employment" is another joke. As for no terror attacks since 9-11, Clinton went just as long without terror attacks on our soil.

What matters now is-- 410 days left until Inaugaration Day.

Bush presided over the mess left behind by the excesses of the clinton era - both economically and geopolitically - and has done a masterful job.

Clinton had the party - Bush cleaned up the mess.

May believe Clinton is far more resposible for the advancement of radical Islam and 9-11, North Korea etc. than Bush could ever be. It is Bush who has reintroduced accountability into the global scene.

[Guest American Woman]

It is Bush who has reintroduced accountability into the global scene.

The global scene most definitely does hold Bush accountable.

[sharkman]

Hmm, Bush or Clinton...

Clinton's administration had a very good run, there is no doubt. But he served while the good times were rolling. Iraq had been beaten into submission, North Korea had been solved in his first term (hah), and the dot com bubble didn't burst until around March 2000.

What was Clinton's biggest problem during his two terms? His groin, plain and simple. He alone caused the embarrassment that nearly had him impeached, and left a stain on his record. He served during a time of ease, but shot himself in the foot.

Bush, on the other hand, served during a time of great adversity. There hadn't been a recovery from the dot com bubble burst when 9/11 hit, and the economy went into the toilet. The stock market went from 11000 to around 7500, and billions were lost. Threats on American soil persist to this day, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost 100s of billions.

A stark difference between the two terms to be sure. One served his country with a clear conscience, and one simply served himself.

[jbg]

Hmm, Bush or Clinton...

Clinton's administration had a very good run, there is no doubt. But he served while the good times were rolling.

****

A stark difference between the two terms to be sure. One served his country with a clear conscience, and one simply served himself.

That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two Presidencies. Good analysis.

Clinton preserved his "peacetime" aura by means of disregarding grave offenses against US interests by Al Quaeda in WTC I (1993), Khobar Towers, the embassy attacks and the USS Cole. The relative tolerance of these outrages led, IMHO, directly to September 11. Bush's more severe (though not severe enough) response has deterred further attacks on the US.

Also, in his desparate effort to gain "credit" for "solving the Middle East problems" led Clinton to disregard Arafat provocations and pressure Israel unduly. Thus, Clinton's era further gained an undeserved reputation for being peaceful. Appeasement and surrender are not peace.

[Liam]

Patently false....President Clinton's WMD speech before Opeation Desert Fox reads nearly the same as President Bush's...if that be "lying"....to wit:

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....President Bill Clinton (Dec 1998)

There's one big difference -- big enough to drive a Mack truck through: time.

I love how Bush defenders bring up Clinton's belief that Iraq had a WMD program to excuse Bush's incompetence in the war. Desert Fox was in, what, 1998? So you're saying that the situation on the ground in Iraq was the same on the eve of the latest Iraq war in 2003 as it was five years earlier? That conditions are static? Bush had a duty to make sure the intelligence on Iraq was solid prior to going to war. There's ample evidence to show that Bush was more interested in fixing intelligence to fit the policy.

In any event, if you think it's fair to justify Bush's war in 2003 on Clinton's actions and intelligence in 1998, I've got some tech stocks for ya that re about to take off. Interested in buying?

[Liam]

I had to vote for Clinton as having the more effective administration. I despised the guy by the end of his term, but even with Congress held in the hands of the opposing party, there's no doubt the guy got plenty of bipartisan legislation through.

Bush has been the poster boy of bad governance and incompetence, of betraying fiscal conservatism and overemphasizing social conservatism. His administration is filled with cronies and incompetent b00bs, none of whom could work their way out of a paper bag if they needed to.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Liam

[xul]

t

Big headache in China too.

If you meant that America troops based in some Arab country made China government headache, I would say it was not fact. China is a country with different cultural from America and the nation has lost its ambitions of conquering world for two thousand years. You could not suppose Chinese and their government would think as your way. If Admiral Keating questioned every Chinese generals he met in China about in which Arab countries America resides its troop, I guess no one could figure it out.

I did not try to judge American presidents from the view based on China interest but on America interest under this topic. If I stood on Chinese interest, I would say:

Bush administration is the most friendly administration China government has ever had since the end of cold war. There were too many "old friends" of China government in Bush administration. Mr. Bush's father, former President Bush was a former American embassador in China and China incumbent minister of foreign affairs is his former translator then. Mr. Cheney is the a main advocator of the policy of associating China against Soviet in cold war. Even Mr. Rumsfeld, who was supposed as the most unfriendly official to China by public media, also invested $500,000 in a fund benefited from China stock market . Bush visited China two times in his first term but Clinton had never visited China in his first term. During Bush administration, China entered WTO made China economy booming rapidly. Bush administration turned American force to mideast so Taiwan was neglected and the ammunition Bush sold Taiwan has never become reality though this is not Mr. Bush's fault. Both you and American Woman did not figure out how nice China government treats to Mr. Bush but he knowns. The refusal of several warship port call Hongkong is the most slightly reaction of China government to the ammunition deal between America and Taiwan, During Clinton's time, usually military offical visits was also been halt for several month.

Considering Bush administration did so mang things for China, as a Chinese or a person who carry a China passport now(at one point I agree with you: I am voting by my feet), I think I should suggest supportors of Mr. Bush could defend their president by this:

Yes, both Bush and Clinton were liar. But Clinton lay for himself, and Bush lay for his country and people's interest, though things did not go to the direction as he hoped.....

Edited December 14, 2007 by xul

[JerrySeinfeld]

The global scene most definitely does hold Bush accountable.

Global scene? By that I presume you would be the UN - a corrupt organization all too often led by thugs or ineffective bureaucrats?

Thanks - I'd stick with the unilateral route.

[Guest American Woman]

The global scene most definitely does hold Bush accountable.

Global scene? By that I presume you would be the UN - a corrupt organization all too often led by thugs or ineffective bureaucrats?

You presume wrong. By "global scene" I meant the same "scene" you were referring to in your quote. The quote I was responding to. I'll repeat it again to help refresh your memory:

It is Bush who has reintroduced accountability into the global scene.

So once again, that global scene.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Global scene? By that I presume you would be the UN - a corrupt organization all too often led by thugs or ineffective bureaucrats?

You presume wrong. By "global scene" I meant the same "scene" you were referring to in your quote. The quote I was responding to. I'll repeat it again to help refresh your memory:

So once again, that global scene.

He has introduced accountability to rogue states. That's a good thing.

Too bad he's pissing into the very strong wind of UN stupidity.

I repeat: unilateralism is a good thing. Since when is a security council with China and Russia vetos a useful global moral compass?

[bush_cheney2004]

There's one big difference -- big enough to drive a Mack truck through: time.

The words are the same....the time is irrelevant.

I love how Bush defenders bring up Clinton's belief that Iraq had a WMD program to excuse Bush's incompetence in the war. Desert Fox was in, what, 1998? So you're saying that the situation on the ground in Iraq was the same on the eve of the latest Iraq war in 2003 as it was five years earlier? That conditions are static? Bush had a duty to make sure the intelligence on Iraq was solid prior to going to war. There's ample evidence to show that Bush was more interested in fixing intelligence to fit the policy.

And president Clinton had no such responsibility in 1998 after Saddam ejected UN inspectors for "spying"? The US Congress enacted public law for "regime change"....Clinton and Blair promptly bombed Iraq (again).

In any event, if you think it's fair to justify Bush's war in 2003 on Clinton's actions and intelligence in 1998, I've got some tech stocks for ya that re about to take off. Interested in buying?

There is no requirement for justification in either event....just US foreign policy reasons. To the specific actions, would you volunteer your city for Desert Fox-like strikes with cruise missiles and fighter bombers over four days (100 sites)? On top of many years of UN sanctions alleged to have killed 500,000?

[jbg]

Too bad he's pissing into the very strong wind of UN stupidity.

Couldn't agree more.

The United Nations was founded out of the ashes of World War II for the noble purpose of ensuring that the earth would never know war or genocide again. The embers of the Nazi gas chambers were still hot. The barely alive, near corpses of Holocaust survivors staggered in the camps of Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen Belsen, Treblinka and other such place. The Nazis had finished slaughtering millions of people for no other reason than that they didn't fit the definition of "Aryan" (as if Hitler was blonde and blue-eyed).

Japanese had just concluded an epic slaughter of Chinese. Numerous Japanese were cremated in the fires of Tokyo, and died in the mushroom clouds of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world literally stank of slaughter and death.

The "solution" to the problems starting WW I hadn't worked. The French, Brits and US levied an oppressive "peace" on the Germans, which meant there was no peace. The Middle East went from feudal satrapy under the Ottomans to a tinder box under the League of Nations mandates. Thus, progressives throughout the world united to form the UN out of the ashes of WW II.

Then things went badly wrong. Postage stamp nations were created at a furious pace after the post-colonial abdications by Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands. The people in their former colonies were left in utter misery. "One man, one vote, one time" ensured that dictators sprung up, destroying whatever spunk and initiative these new nations possessed. India and Pakistan degenerated into war and famine.

The Western nations get the distinction of being pilloried for a pair of underwear winding up on an Iraqi prisoner's head, while, unabated by the UN, slaughters continue in Rwanda, Sudan, Burundi, et. al. The UN does nothing about Robert Mugabe's destruction of Zimbabwe, once a comfortable, middle class land. The UN grinds out a diet of one-sided resolutions against Israel, while ignoring the constant atrocities in Arab lands. Where was the UN on the recent attempt to murder Benizer Bhutto (she escaped unharmed and 149 other innocents were blown up).

The UN is wasting money that ought to benefit the unfortunate. It is worse than the most reactionary conservative dreams that George Wallace or Ross Barnett could dream up.

The UN must go!!!!

I repeat: unilateralism is a good thing. Since when is a security council with China and Russia vetos a useful global moral compass?

To ask the question is to answer it.

[Higgly]

A strange choice. Tweedledum v. Tweedledee.

[ScottSA]

Couldn't agree more.

The United Nations was founded out of the ashes of World War II for the noble purpose of ensuring that the earth would never know war or genocide again. The embers of the Nazi gas chambers were still hot. The barely alive, near corpses of Holocaust survivors staggered in the camps of Buchenwald, Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen Belsen, Treblinka and other such place. The Nazis had finished slaughtering millions of people for no other reason than that they didn't fit the definition of "Aryan" (as if Hitler was blonde and blue-eyed).

Actually, the holocaust had nothing to do with the formation of the UN, and everything to do with the formation of Israel.

The UN was a second attempt at the League of Nations; a longtime aim of the liberal (in the original sense) economic globalists. It had to do with the abolition of war, to be sure, but not an end to it by means of Chapter VII so much as the old thesis Fukuyama dredged up and dusted off; that war won't occur if there is more downside than upside to it. The UN was always intended to be dominated by the classic liberal components in the west, and the increasingly strident radicalism coming out of today is the best argument for that intent i can think of. Unfortunately the classical liberalists were so strong at the time that the current state of affairs wasn't even foreseen. We now have all effective power in the hands of the US and a few hangers on, while the entire corrupt, but fortunately powerless, machinery of the rest of the UN is geared against the US.

The US has less and less to gain by being a member of this monkey's talkshop. It's like Indian affairs in Canada...paying for groups to diss you. The more money Canada gives the Indians, or the US gives the UN, the louder get the whines and howls of rage.