Squink: You’re questioning whether or not the Democrats in question actually said that? You didn’t know that the Democrats had already overwhelmingly (157-29) voted for Regime Change in Iraq?
Here you go, directly from the Dept. of State
I’m sure if you go over to www.thomas.gov you can pull the transcripts of the speeches on the house floor, too.
There is definitely some revisionist spin being applied here.
I’m googling now for a good cite, but my recollection (and news reports at that time seem to back this up, but I’m not finding a definitive summary) is:
The 1998 bipartisan senate resolution recommending force against Iraq was intended as a response to the UN weapons inspections teams leaving Iraq because of Iraq’s non-cooperation and poor support from UN countries (including the U.S.)
The 1998 resolution was intended to support airstrikes against strategic targets to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions, specifically inspections.
The resolution’s language was indeed open ended and basically authorized the president (Clinton) to use whatever force was appropriate, but folks from both sides of the aisle had misgivings about the open-ended language.
The current 2002 resolution being asked for is to support an invasion or Iraq. (A quite different kettle of fish, don’t you think?)
Background context: lest anyone accuse the Clinton White House of being irresolute on the issue at that time, all of these events, and some subsequent bombing of Iraq, took place during or just prior to the infamous 1998 impeachment proceedings.
To continue:
Quite frankly, the only thing that would have surprised me re: the OP was if the war wasn’t brought up this election season. That’s politics for ya.
You think that supports your point? To me it looks like Clinton suddenly turned to the Iraq issue as a distraction from his pants and from Lewinsky’s infamous dress.
Of course it’s a different policy, since the first one didn’t work. But the intention to change the regime in Iraq has been there all along, on both sides of the aisle. Try and deny it.
Thanks for the backup, Sam.
The Iraq Liberation Action of 1998 was indeed intended to encourage opposition groups in Iraq, and neither the senate GOP nor Dems sanctioned invasion of Iraq by the U.S.:
So, apparently the earlier claim that ‘regime change’ as a policy in 1998 was somehow endorsed by all is somewhat correct. However, the part where invasion of Iraq by the U.S. was supported by either Republicans or Democrats in the U.S. Senate is quite incorrect.
I’m glad we got that straightened out.
My point is a response to the motives/actions of members of the Senate with regards to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Why are you changing the subject?
Where did I deny it? I said exactly the same thing.
The only question was, what exactly was the Senate authorizing in 1998 and to what purpose? Per the proferred cites, the intent wasn’t invasion, it was retaliation for the end of inspections to force Iraq to comply. Do you disagree?
But the rhetoric of the Democrats was far more bellicose than that. Let’s repeat some of them:
“Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?” Tom Daschle, 1998
“The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later,” - Sen. Robert C. Byrd, 1998
“I agree with using military force,” - Chris Dodd, 1998
“Iraq is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential activities on a global basis.” - John Kerry, 1998
The fact is, the policy was essentially the same, but the last administration was feckless in carrying it out. Now Bush wants to do it properly, and suddenly those same Bellicose Democrats have turned into doves. And they claim that BUSH is politicising this.
Sam:
The only question was, what exactly was the Senate authorizing in 1998 and to what purpose? Per the proferred cites, the intent wasn’t invasion, it was retaliation for the end of inspections to force Iraq to comply. Do you disagree?
uh, Sam Stone, you must understand that Clinton wasn’t calling for (maybe) a full all-out assault on Iraq, and very specifically wasnt’ (probably) saying that there was a small chance that we might use nuclear weapons in the fight?
you don’t see a difference there?
WTF?
jb
No, If the Washington Times claims that they said these things, then they probably did. What I’m questioning is the contexting of their statements in an admittedly biased piece of reporting. Depending on what was actually going on in 1998, the Times comparisons have no more validity than Daeubler-Gmelin’s observation that “Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That’s a popular method. Even Hitler did that.”
The only way to judge the validity of the comparison is to examine the statements in their initial context. The Washington Times article does not allow us to do that. From the bits squeegee has been kind enough to supply us, it appears that the paper was playing fast and loose with the truth.
No, If the Washington Times claims that they said these things, then they probably did. What I’m questioning is the contexting of their statements in an admittedly biased piece of reporting. Depending on what was actually going on in 1998, the Times comparisons have no more validity than Daeubler-Gmelin’s observation that “Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That’s a popular method. Even Hitler did that.”
The only way to judge the validity of the comparison is to examine the statements in their initial context. The Washington Times article does not allow us to do that. From the bits squeegee has been kind enough to supply us, it appears that the paper was playing fast and loose with the truth.
OK, now you show me the cites where these bloodthirsty Dems starting implying that the Pubbies weren’t “concerned about American security”. Show me where Clinton pulled that shabby bullshit.
Take your time.
I’m not changing the subject. Once again, quoth squeegee:
“Background context: lest anyone accuse the Clinton White House of being irresolute on the issue at that time, all of these events, and some subsequent bombing of Iraq, took place during or just prior to the infamous 1998 impeachment proceedings.”
It’s an irrelevant question, except possibly in pointing out the hypocrisy of the congressional Democrats:
GWB: Ah think Ah’ve got all the authority Ah need to kick some Iraqi ass, based on previous Congressional resolutions.
CDs: :mad: How DARE you take any action without submitting it to us for a vote!
GWB: OK, then could you please give me the authorization?
CDs: :eek: You mean you want us to VOTE on it? Before the midterm elections?! Um . . . ah . . . you’re playing politics, Mr. President! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
If Clinton tried to make such an accusation, he would have been laughed off the podium.
That’s it? That’s all you got? He didn’t pull the same sleazy shit that Our Churchill tried to get away with because he couldn’t?
Thats the best you can do?
Boy, Democratic hysteria sure is amusing these days. Anybody got any popcorn?
I’m just surprised no one has said** Moonie Paper** !
Has this been mentioned :
Clinton wasn’t entirely passive on the question of Iraq. Dec 16th 1998 and a few hours after Clinton withdrew UNSCOM:
"Warplanes aboard the USS Enterprise,combined with more than 200 cruise missiles from eight Navy warships, converged on Iraqi targets at 5:06 p.m. EST (1:06 a.m. Baghdad time). Over a four-day period, reports U.S. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who oversaw the Iraq attack, 300 strike fighters, bombers and support aircraft flew 600 sorties, more than half of them at night. Another 40 ships took part in the attack, with 10 of them firing cruise missiles. More than 600 bombs were dropped, 90 cruise missiles fired from the air and another 300 from ships at sea."
I suppose it’s fair to say Clinton couldn’t have mustered any kind of coalition in 1998. As Georgie can’t now, even in the wake of 9/11. Further, demanding a new UN Resolution (demanding the return of Inspectors) was a little implausible given that Clinton had only just taken 'em out – and, anyway, Kofi Annan was just a tad upset at Clinton/Allbright for their manipulation of UNSCOM when it was in situ. Regime change wasn’t an option.
FWIW, I suspect the primary objective in relation (now) to the midterms is to shore up the existing GOP support – not from potentially defecting but from voter apathy as they continue to count the cost of Worldcom, Enron, Corporate greed, etc. Little works better at getting that core vote down to the voting booths better than good old flag-waving, patriotic/nationalistic hyperbole.
Squink, you are supposed to make it clear when you are posting a parody.
For the record, the words “trust” and “character” do not belong in any sentence referring to the POTUS circa 1998.
As well as the following:
Allow me a moment while I roll around on the floor in convulsions of hysterical laughter. You are talking about Clinton here, Mr. Wag-the-Dog himself! This is the clown who timed his missile attacks for three days before he was scheduled to testify in a grand jury hearing for sexual harassment. This is the person holding the highest office in the land, who schedules military action the night before an impeachment vote in the Senate for lying under oath.
And this is the person to whom you point as a shining example of principle before politics?
Please tell me you aren’t serious, before I need a fresh pair of Depends[sup]TM[/sup].
Regards,
Shodan
But “Georgie” had the epiphany that we don’t need one to get the job done. Couldn’t it be argued at this point that Poppy as well as Bill did more harm than good by letting worries over the “coalition” seduce them into taking ineffectual half measures?