Jump to content


Bill Clinton just refuses to get his ass out of the lime light...


Accord
 Share

Recommended Posts

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates ? Former President Bill Clinton told Arab students Wednesday the United States made a "big mistake" when it invaded Iraq, stoking the partisan debate back home over the war.

 

Clinton cited the lack of planning for what would happen after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

 

"Saddam is gone. It's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done," Clinton told students at a forum at the American University of Dubai.

 

"It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors ... one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country."

 

Clinton's remarks came when he was taking questions about the U.S. invasion, which began in 2003. His response drew cheers and a standing ovation at the end of the hour-long session.

 

Clinton said the United States had done some good things in Iraq: the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections.

 

"The mistake that they made is that when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq. ... We never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders," Clinton said.

 

 

As the borders were unsealed, "the terrorists came in," he said.

 

Clinton said it would have been better if the United States had left Iraq's "fundamental military and social and police structure intact."

 

Democrats are accusing President Bush of having misled the American public about the urgency of the Iraqi threat before his order to invade, and Bush on Monday threw back at Democratic critics the worries they once expressed about Saddam.

 

"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now," Bush charged.

 

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld continued Bush's attack, citing the words of Clinton and others from his administration as saying Saddam was a security threat to the United States and its allies.

 

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld noted the Iraq Liberation Act that Congress passed in 1998 had said it should be U.S. government policy to support Saddam's removal from power. He noted that Clinton signed the act and ordered four days of bombing in December 1998.

 

Recent opinion polls show Bush as having the lowest approval rating of his presidency. In AP-Ipsos polling, a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Former Presidents doing speeches for big money?

 

NO WAI!

 

 

I think its sickening that a former president goes to foreign soil to criticize his own country and question U.S. policy. He can do it here that's fine, but you don't do it when you're in the enemies back yard, that is disgraceful. He's doing this on foreign soil, when is enough going to be enough?

 

A former president undermining the country while on foreign soil is not right no matter how you try and cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What about when the Reagan administration gave the Mujahadeen weapons that later came to be used against us under the names Al-Qaeda/Usama Bin Laden/Taliban?

 

 

 

*Stirs up the hornet's nest*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What about when the Reagan administration gave the Mujahadeen weapons that later came to be used against us under the names Al-Qaeda/Usama Bin Laden/Taliban?

 

 

 

*Stirs up the hornet's nest*

 

To be fair the mujahadeen were also Tajiks and Uzbeks that would later make up the Nothern Alliance (contra the Taliban) and not just the Pashtuns and the Arab volunteer unit (UBL's boyz). Also the Stinger/Blowpiple man-portable missles we gave them weren't reliable by the time we invaded Afghanistan.

 

Ah, I'm just sh*tting around, I think you point is valid, of course.

 

As for Clinton's remarks, eh hindsight is 20/20 yada yada yada. Desert Fox really did well, huh, Clinton!? I love that indiscriminate cruise missle barrage Clinton authorized that noone wants to even f***ing acknowledge. What exactly did that do?

 

Though, people should get off his nuts about bin Laden, the American public didn't give a f*** about the guy so Clinton wasn't going to tie up all sorts of rescources to kill him. Americans need to have a plague to worry about a plague, a massive hurricane to care about hurricanes, a massive terrorist attack to care about terrorism etc. They are sort of like men who hate going to the doctor, lol.

 

I think that is why Bush sexed up the reasons to go to war with Iraq, the basic security/stability issues were probably too boring and unacceptable for the public/media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to blame Bill for not getting Bin Laden, then you're also going to have to blame Reagan. He let our guys train guys like Bin Laden and the men who became the future leaders of Al Qaeda.

 

It's so true though, Republicans can't lay off Clinton for one second. Whenever he opens his mouth, they have to bash him. He's been out of office for half a decade, it's old news now. Let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured and the Administration would not have gone into a terrorist hunting frenzy. Of course this is all speculation, perhaps Al Qaeda might have attacked us in a less drastic mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured

because Bin Laden acted alone?

 

I think someone else would've just taken Bin Laden's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured

because Bin Laden acted alone?

 

I think someone else would've just taken Bin Laden's place.

 

Not ruling that out, but I don't know the dynamics of how Al Qaeda operates. My guess is that losing the head of an organization in general sets said organization back in it's plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured

because Bin Laden acted alone?

 

I think someone else would've just taken Bin Laden's place.

 

Not ruling that out, but I don't know the dynamics of how Al Qaeda operates. My guess is that losing the head of an organization in general sets said organization back in it's plans.

Possibly, but unlikely. These groups are very decentralized. They operate in terror cells, a term often heard today. Look at Zarqawi. Seems like he can operate whether Bin Laden exists or not.

 

But the point still stands. Bush's foolishness cant be put off on Clinton. If Bush killed his wife because he was so pissed at Osama, then we wouldnt blame Bill would we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured and the Administration would not have gone into a terrorist hunting frenzy. Of course this is all speculation, perhaps Al Qaeda might have attacked us in a less drastic mode.

 

 

Then why did the administration start planning military action against Iraq since January of 2000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured and the Administration would not have gone into a terrorist hunting frenzy. Of course this is all speculation, perhaps Al Qaeda might have attacked us in a less drastic mode.

 

 

Then why did the administration start planning military action against Iraq since January of 2000?

 

We've been conducting small scale military operations on them for the last decade. It would be foolish not to plan for a need arising to invade Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. made a big mistake when Bill didn't get Osama when he had the chance.

 

What does that have to do with Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Are you suggesting because Bill Clinton didnt kill Osama, the Bush administration wouldnt have been able to lie and sucker the country into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Bin Laden, hence sending us into the war in the first place?

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured and the Administration would not have gone into a terrorist hunting frenzy. Of course this is all speculation, perhaps Al Qaeda might have attacked us in a less drastic mode.

 

all fine and dandy, but Bush wanted an excuse to go into Iraq since he was elected in 2000. this just provided the easy way into this war that he so desperately wanted.

 

 

 

 

Bush went into Iraq on the precedent that 9/11 was the beginning of a war against terrorism. Had Bin Laden been killed under Clinton's Administration, it's likely 9/11 would not have occured and the Administration would not have gone into a terrorist hunting frenzy. Of course this is all speculation, perhaps Al Qaeda might have attacked us in a less drastic mode.

 

 

 

Then why did the administration start planning military action against Iraq since January of 2000?

 

We've been conducting small scale military operations on them for the last decade. It would be foolish not to plan for a need arising to invade Iraq.

 

ya so are there plans to invade every nation then?

 

you know just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to blame Bill for not getting Bin Laden, then you're also going to have to blame Reagan. He let our guys train guys like Bin Laden and the men who became the future leaders of Al Qaeda.

 

It's so true though, Republicans can't lay off Clinton for one second. Whenever he opens his mouth, they have to bash him. He's been out of office for half a decade, it's old news now. Let it go.

 

 

I hope you are making this point for effect or something as this isn't very accurate. You make it sound like Reagan was the head imam in some madrasa in Peshawar or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to blame Bill for not getting Bin Laden, then you're also going to have to blame Reagan. He let our guys train guys like Bin Laden and the men who became the future leaders of Al Qaeda.

 

It's so true though, Republicans can't lay off Clinton for one second. Whenever he opens his mouth, they have to bash him. He's been out of office for half a decade, it's old news now. Let it go.

 

 

I hope you are making this point for effect or something as this isn't very accurate. You make it sound like Reagan was the head imam in some madrasa in Peshawar or something.

He authorized our CIA operatives and paramilitary guys to train these guys who became the leaders of Al Qaeda. So I think he would be more to blame than Bill Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...