And where, Sam, in your quote-fest is discussion about our military invading Iraq? All of those quotes are deliberately vague as to what should be done. If prominent Democrats opposed Bush’s policy, could it perhaps be because it was a different policy than what was current in 1998?
Do I have to repeat this again? NO ONE is saying that the U.S. planned to invade Iraq in 1998, or that anyone was advocating a full-scale invasion. However, the reasons Bush gave for the invasion were echoed by Democrats in 1998. It’s all there - WMD, gassing the Kurds, the risk of weapons getting into the hands of terrorists, failure to comply with U.N. resolutions, etc.
I posted this in the context of a thread asking, “Why Iraq, and not Iran?” In that context, quotes from Democrats describing the desire to remove Saddam from power are reasonable, are they not?
No, squeegee, the most “deftly dishonest implication possible from that resolution” (because much easier to miss) is that either Clinton or the Congressional Democrats were part of, or represented, “the left.”
You lost me. “The left” and “democrats” are usually used as synonyms in the right’s Noise Machine, are they not?
Yes, they are. That’s what I meant by “deftly dishonest implication.”
Maybe I read to much into your post – you were responding, indirectly, to a point made by me about your Regime Change Clinton Policy quote, no? So I thought it was directed at me, not unreasonably IMO.
And I’ll thank you to read me narrowly, and not assume you know what you think I really mean. Pleonast is 100% correct.
I’m not aware of anyone who would argue that the 1998 resolution alone justified the war from a legal standpoint; it plainly did not, and anyone saying otherwise is a fool. It (and Sam’s quotes above) does, however, point out that there was a history there and that many people had at least in the past seemed open to the idea.
IOW, deciding to add “and we will do so by military means” to the existing policy was less of a stretch than starting from step one with Iran.
Great job containining Iran, Bush. Now they learn one thing from both the invasion of Iraq and the North Korea affair: get nukes in the arsenal, no matter how.
And yet Bush took us to war by claiming that Iraq was actually a serious and growing threat to the survival of the United States. And some people actually believed him! :eek:
And yet Bush bypassed the UN when it became clear that the Security Council would not approve his little invasion. Now where’s the legality of that? (And please don’t argue the right of self-defense.)
Again, whether or not you accept the argument is another issue; but there was at least arguably more legal justification.
Well, sure, its an argument. Of a sort. And just what Bricker says, when GeeDubya swears he’s telling the truth, that is evidence. Mahatma Ghandi and Jeffrey Dahmer are both people, too, which one would you rather have for a baby-sitter?
Actually, you have stated that Clinton was planning the same thing, but didn’t have the political capital to pull it off. You claim that the reason he ended up just funding the Kurds was because of lack of support.
You’ll also note that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch for people to assume that that last line of your’s is equating “regime change” with “invading.”
It also wouldn’t be the only time you’ve tried to make that connection.
Apparently, it’s not the only time you’ve misread what I said, too.
And your very quote of me says:
You even bolded the correct part. I did NOT say that Clinton advocated an invasion. I said he advocated the same goal (i.e. regime change), and that he didn’t have the wherewithal or the political capital to pull it off. In other words, an invasion wasn’t an option, and couldn’t do it any other way. Would he have invaded if he thought he could get the support for it? I have no idea. But I certainly didn’t claim that Clinton wanted to invade Iraq.
You know, you really lost me with this. This is what you’re referring to:
HOW in the world do you get that I’m equating ‘regime change’ with invasion out of that? In the very sentence you mentioned, I said that they couldn’t change the regime by invasion, so they planned to do it without invading. I don’t know how more plain that can be. Regime change means… let me look it up…“causing a regime to change”. Invasion is but one way to achieve that. Nowhere did I suggest otherwise.
Is this a case of you reading my words and substituting what you believe I’m “really” saying, or what?
If I make a suggestion, why don’t you limit your comments to the words I actually wrote?
Note the bolded word, which makes it mean exactly what I stated. Did you mispeak?
Nope, it’s pretty clear.
I did.
Here is another one, where you quite clearly are making the case that Clinton wanted a war:
Or here:
Then we have this post in which you take a statement by Clinton out of context to show that he backs the war. Feel free to provide that entire speech in context, instead of the single quote. He’s not backing up what you think he is (I take that back, you might know what he’s referring to, but decided to intentionally mislead).
And just for fun, since you want me to stick to your explicit words, without any parsing, remember the good old days?:
And just for fun, since you like to talk about us tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists regarding the war, this post stands on its own:
Let’s face it, when it came to Iraq, your posts were loony back then, and it’s actually a shame, as you were spot on in many things in those days. You derided your own party for claiming that Clinton was “Wagging the Dog”, for example, but when it came to Iraq, you had this bizarre irrational fear of Hussein, that wasn’t based on any actual evidence. You were fairly even-handed on everything else, even when I disagreed with you on just about every issue, but you and I both know that you tried to make the claim that Clinton wanted to go to war, that he supported Bush going to war, and that Congress wanted Bush to go to war.
Fun times, those.
DMC, you are not interpreting Sam remotely correctly.
Sam has not used the word “plan” at all; that’s purely yours.
He is saying Clinton advocated the same goal (all questions of means aside) of regime change; and that is indeed a fact.
He has suggested that Clinton may have wanted to invade, but couldn’t. That is speculation on Sam’s part; take it FWIW and argue if you like.
He has not said that Clinton expressly advocated invasion as a means to that goal. If you think he has, show where Sam has said so, explictly and in his own words.
Advocate, want, half dozen, six. Questions?
Additionally, what does this mean then?
Are you really going to claim that funding Kurdish rebels, in the hopes that they will be able to overthrow Saddam, is essentially the same policy as us launching a war that has no end in sight? That’s absurd.