Please help truth-check this (Bush v Clinton)

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Some people here are only trying to “understand” the situation because it gives them a platform to attack the president. The more links they find that support their opinions the more trash they can hurl at the current administration…
[/QUOTE]
Ah, probably so. I imagine there are lots of people who will just bash Bush for the sake of it. I’m pretty bad at picking them out, though.. what’s your general technique for picking out those who are just picking random links to insult from those who’ve actually done research?

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Oh, certainly, if you’re correct that none of us can understand this issue, all of our opinions are invalid.

The problem I was trying to point out is that if you’re convinced that we can’t have a true understanding of the situation, you should logically have no opinion on it. Whatever any of us believes includes you. I was just wondering how you can manage to both have an (apparently) very strong opinion and think that all opinions are invalid. The two don’t really seem to go.
[/QUOTE]

Because I am a realist…

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Absence of “evidence” does not necessarily mean presence of innocence.
[/QUOTE]

There’s no evidence that there’s a Toilet Monster in my bathroom. Does that mean there might be one? :dubious:

Under our legal system, evidence is presented to determine guilt or ‘innocence’. While it’s true that a guilty person may be found not guilty, under our laws that person cannot be punished. And certainly a person may not be legally punished before there is a trial. There’s this thing called the ‘Constitution’, y’see…

However there is evidence. It’s just that the evidence we had before the war showed that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that Saddam was not conducting WMD programs. Bush and his henchmen ignored the evidence or suppressed it, presented the world with lies, and invaded Iraq inviolation of treaties that are the ‘Law of the Land’.

Or to put it another way, or another…

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Ah, probably so. I imagine there are lots of people who will just bash Bush for the sake of it. I’m pretty bad at picking them out, though.. what’s your general technique for picking out those who are just picking random links to insult from those who’ve actually done research?
[/QUOTE]

Depends on the link…

If its some obscure cite that is clearly left or right I dismiss it.

If it is some big time media conglomerate I dismiss it too…

If you are speaking about a cite that has someone who does actual research then I lend it more credence, but then I just kind of give it up because anytime someone actually does good research the swarms of critics seize upon the tiniest of details and rip apart all that hard work.

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
There’s no evidence that there’s a Toilet Monster in my bathroom. Does that mean there might be one? :dubious:

Under our legal system, evidence is presented to determine guilt or ‘innocence’. While it’s true that a guilty person may be found not guilty, under our laws that person cannot be punished. And certainly a person may not be legally punished before there is a trial. There’s this thing called the ‘Constitution’, y’see…

However there is evidence. It’s just that the evidence we had before the war showed that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that Saddam was not conducting WMD programs. Bush and his henchmen ignored the evidence or suppressed it, presented the world with lies, and invaded Iraq inviolation of treaties that are the ‘Law of the Land’.

Or to put it another way, or another…
[/QUOTE]

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

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.

So explain that?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Because I am a realist…
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, I don’t get what you mean. What about being a realist means you can say both “All opinions are invalid” and “I have a strong opinion on this”? You can’t have it both ways.

Depends on the link…

If its some obscure cite that is clearly left or right I dismiss it.

If it is some big time media conglomerate I dismiss it too…

If you are speaking about a cite that has someone who does actual research then I lend it more credence, but then I just kind of give it up because anytime someone actually does good research the swarms of critics seize upon the tiniest of details and rip apart all that hard work.

When you say “someone who does actual research”, what do you mean, exactly? Journalists do research, or at least they’re supposed to. Could you give me some examples of some people you would be more willing to trust?

If you’re not willing to trust many sources (as it appears), where is it you get your opinions from? I mean, certainly people need to evaluate things themselves, but you need to get an idea of what’s going on from somewhere, short of going yourself.

Edit: On preview I see you’re citing a big time media conglomerate. I’m highly confused.

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
The Straight Dope column’s purpose is to provide entertaining factual answers to questions. It’s not a news column, nor an encyclopedia. It’s an entertainment column that entertains by answering people’s questions. You can submit your question to Cecil and he may or may not answer it.

On September 17 2003 Bush finally admitted ‘We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th.’

Note that this is conveniently after his invasion. Did Bush lie about a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? I don’t have the caffeine to look for specific quotes right now. I don’t know if he ever directly said there was a link. However he definitely did imply a link. He frequently mentioned Al Qaeda and Saddam in the sam breath, in the same sentence, to give the impression to the Public that a link existed. He clearly intended to link them. Consider this analogy. A mother tells a child to clean his room, and specifically tells him to clean under the bed. When the mother leaves, the child crawls under the bed and then crawls out and procedes to shove everything under the bed. The mother asks, ‘Did you clean your room?’ The child says, ‘I picked up, my toys… and I put my dirty clothes in the hamper… and I got under the bed…’ The mother thinks ‘got under the bed’ means he cleaned under the bed. The child clearly meant to deceive and the mother bought it. Did he lie? Bush didn’t actually say the words, ‘Saddam worked with Al Qaeda to attack the World Trade Centers.’ But his statements were deliberately arranged in such a way that that’s what people would believe. He lied. And he didn’t come clean until he had presented us with a fait accompli.
[/QUOTE]

Consider this analogy:

The UN tells Saddam not to have any WMDs. Saddam says OK and then goes about making his WMDs clandestine and portable and gets rid of all the WMDs he stored in his garage. There! Now Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, and all is groovy?

[Johnny_L.A]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998

So explain that?
[/QUOTE]

OK.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years” in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. “When is this going to end?” he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD.

<snip>

In his final report in October 2004, Charles Duelfer, head of a post-invasion U.S. team of weapons hunters, concluded Iraq and the U.N. inspectors had, indeed, dismantled the nuclear program and destroyed the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles by 1992, and the Iraqis never resumed production.

Incidentally, it’s interesting that you repeatedly claim that Clinton did nothing but then you provide a cite that he did.

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
OK.

Incidentally, it’s interesting that you repeatedly claim that Clinton did nothing but then you provide a cite that he did.
[/QUOTE]

Show me the actual translated documents?

[Ravenman]

Exactly. Clinton was wrong about WMD so he bombed for four days. Bush was wrong about WMD and he invaded, costing us the lives of 3,800 plus Americans, the better part of a trillion taxpayer dollars, and at least tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

You can read the CIA’s report here, which explains in great detail Johnny LA’s summary. There were no WMD in Iraq.

[ManiacMan]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
Exactly. Clinton was wrong about WMD so he bombed for four days. Bush was wrong about WMD and he invaded, costing us the lives of 3,800 plus Americans, the better part of a trillion taxpayer dollars, and at least tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

You can read the CIA’s report here, which explains in great detail Johnny LA’s summary. There were no WMD in Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Partly because Clinton destroyed alot when he bombed thus teaching Saddam to keep his weapons programs mobile. Go into Syria and look at the “made in Iraq” tags on all those WMds over there for pete’s sake.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
When ethnic cleansing came to light in Kosovo, Clinton took NATO to war for the first time every to stop it. You don’t seem to acknowledge that as an accomplishment for Clinton. Why?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know about ManiacMan, but some posters on Free Republic actually seem to hold that intervention against Clinton – because the Albanians (and the Bosnians) are Muslims.

[Lobohan]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Wow you sure hate America…and I am not apologizing for anything America did or didn’t do. In fact I hope we triple the troop deployment and crush our enemies into a fine dust. Unlike you who sympathize with and wants to take a shower with our enemies.

And some economic surplus makes up for Rwanda?

Tell that to all the dead people…
[/QUOTE]

That isn’t a rational argument. There are perhaps a hundred thousand or more dead people in Iraq who would still be breathing right now if not for Bush’s fake war.

Are there any genocides that Bush hasn’t addressed?

Where do you propose we get those soldiers to make up your brilliant war plan? Will you sign up?

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/628wqxma.asp?pg=1

There ya go!
[/QUOTE]
Whatever this actually meant, (such as, perhaps Aswad was merely the man in Pakistan who was designated to handle any communications between Hussein and al Qaida, if any occurred following the single unproductive meeting in the early 1990s), it is pretty clear from other evidence that it fails to demonstrate any real connection between Iraq and al Qaida after 2000–particularly in reference to the WTC/Pentagon attacks.

The very fact that the administration did not run screaming to the media with this “proof” indicates that they knew it was meaningless.

Another view of the tale: There’s an odd story making the right-wing rounds.

Based on this report, it would seem that it is possible that Aswad’s name was inserted into the paper by someone attmepting to sabotage the Ba’ath regime, making the issue even cloudier. Nevertheless, there has been no eveidence of any actual connection before or after that anonymous story that leads nowhere.

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Partly because Clinton destroyed alot when he bombed thus teaching Saddam to keep his weapons programs mobile. Go into Syria and look at the “made in Iraq” tags on all those WMds over there for pete’s sake.
[/QUOTE]
There are none and repeating glurge from right wing blogs will not establish your case for such silly claims.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Well we are in a war so maybe a draft is the way to go…
[/quote]

1. In a war? Did Congress ever declare war? Of course there was one anyway . . . But didn’t the war end before W landed on that carrier with the “Mission Accomplished!” banner?

In any case, it’s highly debatable whether or not the U.S. is “at war” for legal/constitutional purposes.

2. A draft would be politically impossible and proposing it would be political suicide for any congresscritter, Pub or Dem.

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
How do you know, exactly, what the insurgency is made up of? Did you google that?
[/QUOTE]

It’s no secret.

While it is not known how many of those resisting the U.S. occupation in Iraq are from outside the country, it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the insurgency. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that “99.9 per cent” of captured Insurgents are Iraqi.[22] The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon’s own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi.[23] According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi, although Colonel John Gronski stated that foreigners provided money and logistical support: “The foreign fighters are staying north of the [Euphrates] river, training and advising, like the Soviets were doing in Vietnam”[24] In September 2006, the Christian Science Monitor reported, “It’s true that foreign fighters are in Iraq, such as the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But they are a small minority of the insurgents, say administration critics. Most Iraqi mujahideen are Sunnis who fear their interests will be ignored under Iraq’s Shia-dominated government. They are fighting for concrete, local political goals - not the destruction of America.” The paper quoted University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole: “If the Iraqi Sunni nationalists could take over their own territory, they would not put up with the few hundred foreign volunteers blowing things up, and would send them away or slit their throats.”[25] In 2005, the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) concluded that foreign fighters accounted for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents and argued that the US and Iraqi Governments were “feeding the myth” that they comprised the backbone of the insurgency.[26]

Despite the low numbers of foreign fighters their presence has been confirmed in several ways and Coalition forces believe the majority of suicide bombings are believed to be carried out by non-Iraqi foreigners. Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service[3], stated in June 2005: “I still think 80 percent of the Insurgents, the day to day activity, is Iraqi - the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire…[but] the foreign fighters attract the headlines with the suicide bombings, no question.”[27]

In September 2005, Iraqi and US forces conducted a counter-insurgency operation in the predominantly Turkmen town of Tal Afar. According to an AP, report, an Iraqi Army Captain claimed that Iraqi forces arrested 150 non-Iraqi Arabs (Syria, Sudan, Yemen and Jordan) in the operation;[28] the American army claimed 20% of arrests were foreign combatants,[29] while Donald Rumsfeld on PBS confirmed that foreign combatants were present.[30] However, not all accounts of the battle mention these arrests,[31] and U.S. Army commander Colonel H. R. McMasters said the “vast majority” of Insurgents captured there were “Iraqis and not foreigners.”[4] Iraqi journalist Nasir Ali claimed that there were “very few foreign combatants” in Tal Afar and charged “Every time the US army and the Iraqi government want to destroy a specific city, they claim it hosts Arab fighters and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”[5]

There are allegations that the U.S. government has attempted to inflate the number of foreign fighters in order to advance the theory that the insurgency is not a local movement.[citation needed] U.S. Army Specialist Tony Lagouranis spoke about his job identifying many of the bodies after the assault on Fallujah:

We had women and children, old men, young boys. . . [U.S. commanders] were trying to prove that there were a lot of foreign fighters in Falujah, so that was mainly what we were going for. Very few of them had foreign IDs. . . In an effort to, sort of, “cook the books”, you know, they would find a Qu’ran on the guy and the Qu’ran was printed in Algeria and they’d mark him down as an Algerian, or guys would come in with a black shirt and khaki pants, and they’d say, well, this is the Hezbollah uniform, and so they’d mark him down as a Lebanese. Which was ridiculous. . . I did say something to the Staff Sergeant, and, you know, I just got yelled down.[32]

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
This was never a debate…more like an experiment. I was thinking that its like going to a different planet and seeing what kind of organisms there are crawling around.
[/QUOTE]

If that’s what you want, you’d have more fun lurking or trolling on Democratic Underground.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Consider this analogy:

The UN tells Saddam not to have any WMDs. Saddam says OK and then goes about making his WMDs clandestine and portable and gets rid of all the WMDs he stored in his garage. There! Now Saddam didn’t have any WMDs, and all is groovy?
[/QUOTE]

No, but neither is it what happened.

[Ravenman]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
Partly because Clinton destroyed alot when he bombed thus teaching Saddam to keep his weapons programs mobile.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t read a word of the CIA report, did you? There were no WMD when Clinton bombed in 1998. There were no WMD when Bush invaded in 2003. It’s all there, from the CIA, in black and white. It is a fact. Your speculation is wrong and you can’t provide any evidence of what you say. End of story.

Do you get your news from Fox News, by the way?

[Frostillicus]

[QUOTE=ManiacMan]
3 months is plenty of time to do…I don’t know…but something. Even today Clinton recognizes this whole episode as a failure on his and the international community. I would leave the what could have been done to him.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m convinced!