Guess Who Said This
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live at peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war against his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
Well put Mr. ...............!
posted by Underground Logician @ 10:25 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Clinton.
I even found the transcript of this speech on PBS. Never would have guessed it.
And this proves what?
No matter what you dredge up from President Clinton, the fact remains that it was Bush, not Clinton, who invaded Iraq.
We will never know how Clinton would have solved the Saddam problem.
Just because he acknowledged that Saddam was a menace to the world, doesn't mean he advocated invading Iraq.
We will never know.
This does not absolve Bush from what he has wrought in the Middle East.
Clinton has been out of office for 5 years.
Find another whipping boy to blame Bush's egregious mistakes on.
Sheesh.
Isabella!
My, my, my. Must have hit nerve again! You seem to jump on this blog when I hit close to home. First it's your favorite comedian Al Franken's stupid remarks, and now Clinton. Take your medicine like a woman, will ya? If Bush lied to the American people and the idiot Democratic senators who were so "duped" by the false intelligence, maybe Bush duped Clinton too in 1998 while governor of Texas. Bush wanted a war so badly with Iraq he made Clinton bomb the hell out of Baghdad too. The argument that Bush passed on flawed intelligence is soooooo flawed, it is laughable.
Do you even remember Operation Desert Fox, Isabella? Or did this drop out of your selective memory too? I've posted on this topic before, how the democratic leadership were singing in perfect harmony with each other about the evils of Saddam prior to the advent of the Bush administration. You weren't responsive to the logic then; I doubt that you'll respond now.
As to what it proves...Saddam and his regime was a threat, even if it was a diversion from Clinton's oral sex scandal. The free nations and the U.N. also agreed to Saddam's danger before the dreaded Bush administration came to spread its fascist policies.
It's time you finally drop your fallacious reasoning, Isabella. We're too smart here at the UL. I'm starting to pity you and your fellow lefties sad attempts for an argument. However, in the name of Illogic, I'm sure you will press on though the odds of you making a coherent argument are overwhelmingly against you.
Dear UL,
I stick by my argument that Bush went to war based on flawed intelligence that, we are finding out bit by bit, was deliberately fed to intelligence communities in Germany and France as well as the US. Eventually we'll find out who was behind this deliberate misleading fraudulent intelligence.
And I repeat, Bill Clinton's bombing Iraq was not a war. BUSH and only BUSH commited this country to a war in Iraq based on lies and misleading intelligence.
But if that's not good enough for you (and I know it itsn't) then what do you make of an authority no less than Pope John Paul II saying the invasion of Iraq was immoral? Or maybe you believe that the Catholic Church and its leader, the Pope, has authority only in the matter of abortion? That the Pope has no moral authority in speaking against war? Tsk. Tsk. You can't have it both ways. No less than Christ's representative on earth says the war is immoral. You have no arguments against that. Your Pope trumps your president any day.
Consistent Ethic of Life
Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected
by Mark and Louise Zwick
The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II.
From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again!
John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.
In the weeks and months before the U.S. attacked Iraq, not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a "preemptive" or "preventive" strike. They declared that the just war theory could not justify such a war. Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran said that such a "war of aggression" is a crime against peace. Archbishop Renato Martino, who used the same words in calling the possible military intervention a "crime against peace that cries out vengeance before God," also criticized the pressure that the most powerful nations exerted on the less powerful ones on the U.N. Security Council to support the war. The Pope spoke out almost every day against war and in support of diplomatic efforts for peace.
John Paul II sent his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, a friend of the Bush family, to remonstrate with the U.S. President before the war began. Pio Laghi said such a war would be illegal and unjust. The message was clear: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
After the United States began its attacks against Iraq, FOX News actually reported the immediate comments of the Holy Father, made in an address at the Vatican to members of an Italian religious television channel, Telespace: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society," John Paul said. "Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man."
Americans were largely unaware of the depth and importance of the opposition of Church leaders to an attack on Iraq, since for the most part the mainstream media did not carry the stories. In the same way, many Americans were unaware that Pope John Paul II spoke against the first Gulf War 56 times. Media in the United States omitted this from the commentaries on the war. Many have also been unaware of the number of Iraqis killed in that war (not to mention the war which recently "ended"). In February 2003 Business Week published an interview with Beth Osborne Daponte, a professional demographer who worked for the Census Bureau. The first Bush administration tried to fire her because her published estimates of the number of Iraqi deaths conflicted with what Dick Cheney was saying at the time. She was defended by social science professionals and was able to keep her job. Her estimates: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system.
In the past few years, Catholic neoconservatives have been attempting to develop a new philosophy of just war which would include preemptive strikes against other nations, what might be called a "preventive war." George Weigel has published major articles defending this position since 1995. First Things magazine published his articles and editorially agreed with this point of view. The present Bush administration has used these writings to defend the strike against Iraq. Shortly before the war began, through the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, President Bush sent Michael Novak to go to Rome to try to justify the war to the Pope and Vatican officials. Catholic News Service reported that the two-hour symposium was attended by some 150 invited guests, including lower-level Vatican officials, professors from church universities in Rome and diplomats accredited to the Vatican. Since with one voice Rome had already rejected the argument for a preventive war, Novak took the approach that a war on Iraq would not be a preventive war, but a continuation of a "just war," Iraqi War I, and actually a moral obligation. He argued that it was also a matter of self-defense, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was an un-scrupulous character, and therefore it was only a matter of time before he took up with Al Qaida and gave them such weapons.
Novak did not succeed in convincing Church leaders-in fact, some commentators reflected that his efforts might have had the opposite effect. Novak's credibility in this argument was perhaps undermined by his employment at the American Enterprise Institute, heavily funded by oil companies, some of whom began advertising in the Houston Chronicle for employees to work in Iraq even before the war began.
more here:
http://tinyurl.com/chmz4
UL,
There is no fallacious reasoning to the facts that there were no WMDs in Iraq and that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.
There was no mushroom cloud on its way to the US.
Tom DeLay under indictment, Bill Frist under investigation by the SEC and the DoJ, Bush's advisor and Cheney's Cheney, I. Lewis Libby indicted for lying and obstruction of justice in the Plame Scandal, Karl Rove, still under investigation, and a known liar (the president's press secretary assured the American people that Rove told him he had nothing to do with the Plame Scandal), Savafian, the head of the GSA, arrested and indicted.
Journalists paid to shill for the Bush administration, against the law.
The horrendous, abominable torture scandal.
Really I can't list all of the high crimes and misdemeanors this malAdministration has perpetrated.
Bush's approval 35%
Cheney's approval 19%
And you're still fuming over a BJ???
Whew.
So, could you stick to the point and conclude with me, my verbose friend, that one, Bush didn't mislead America with false intelligence; and two, Clinton and Bush had the same intel? Bush had echoed and prosecuted precisely what Clinton had said. Only, Bush gets hammered 'cuz he's a fascist, and Clinton is seen as a genius. You and your liberal ilk are totally inconsistant and shows your blatant political animosity toward Bush.
As to WMD's, Saddam had them and he used them. Rememember? So if he had them, he must have stockpiled them. And if they weren't there when we got there, where did they go? Are you so sure of yourself that you can say the Saddam didn't have them? What revisionists will you consult to answer these questions?
And puuuuulease, don't copy over huge amounts of text for me. Just give me the URL. I'll be sure to look at your liberal citations. You deviate from the point thinking that your enormous quantities of text back whatever argument you are countering with, if it be that since the pope was against the Iraq War, so should I. If you want to talk about this, I'd be glad to discuss it.
But, sticking to the point...great quote by Clinton, eh Isabella?
So, could you stick to the point and conclude with me, my verbose friend, that one, Bush didn't mislead America with false intelligence;
UL, we have not had Congressional investigations into that matter, so, no, we cannot conclude anything of the sort. And I do not take the Bush administration's word on it. Ever.
They've been caught being dishonest and lying. Why should I believe anything BushCo. says?
..."and two, Clinton and Bush had the same intel?"
You don't know this for a fact. You don't know if Bush had the same intel (as Clinton had during his presidency) at the time of Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
No American citizen knows this, because the Republican controlled Congress will not allow a fair and full investigation. And one wonders why. What are they covering up?
And David Kaye, the Bush appointed inspector, as well as Hans Blix, have testified that THERE WERE NO WMDs. NADA. It is not me saying this, it is the Bush administration saying this.
Yes, it is a great quote by Clinton. But it proves only that he saw Saddam as a threat. He did not advocate anywhere in that quote that the US invade the country. The US has always been able to make regime changes in countries where we see their leaders as a threat to us.
And I did assume that since you are a devout Catholic, that the Pope's pronouncement on the Iraq war as being immoral would have some resonance with you.
Isabella:
Persistance is your strength. There HAVE been investigations about the intel with the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004. During that investigation is where Mr. Wilson's argument against Niger yellow cake scenario imploded when he contradicted himself. I do recall posting comment on it where some liberal comments "poisoned the well," calling the Senate Intelligence Committee report as bogus because it was run by the Repubs. So, you are wrong there.
As to same intel, I made a daring inference, since the conclusions of Pre-Bush administration conclusions, Senate and Congressional Democrats, the French, English, the U.N. all had the same conclusions. The fact that Bush ACTED on the intel makes him a war monger. This tells me the Dems are extremely envious. Bush's numbers after 9/11 were soaring, and as a Democrat, you can't have that; Bush will get re-elected if you support the damn war. So you tear it apart; whittle away at Bush's credibility. I don't have to explain this to you. You know the rhetoric.
Correction, David Kaye and Hans Blix were not a part of Bush's administration. Also an aside, just because you have State Dept officials contradicting Bush doesn't mean that these people are a part of his administration. The State Dept. is notoriously liberal, including CIA. I'm a bit fearful that the CIA may be too powerful and can turn on a president of any color if there isn't enough adequate ass-kissing. Clinton may have had this problem as well.
As to the Pope's pronouncement, though it is not ex-cathedra, and therefore non-binding, I do listen to him in this. I'm not required to hold to his political positions, however, the morality of his decision is certainly authoritative. As to my position on the war in Iraq, war is never the first, second, or the sixteenth choice a country should make. Now that we're in Iraq, let's do the very best we can to stabilize the nation and get out.
I think the situation in Iraq is far better than we are led to believe and it is because of the gross disinformation given to unseat a president, the media does a huge disservice to us and undermines our war effort. If it's really bad, I want to know. If there are good results, I want to know that also. The assertion that Bush administration lied to the American people is not grounded and inflammatory; it does irreparable damage to our military, or effort and only serves those who seek power. I've been loooooooooooong disgusted with the entire situation.
This time I'm verbose! Hope I didn't lose you.
Wow! No. Not verbose at all. Just popped in to see if I got an answer. And, as usual, a detailed one.
I don't have a lot of time just now to respond. You do give me such a hard time, don't you.
I'll pop back later to see if I can give a reasonable answer.
How the heck do you have time to do this AND continue with your education?
Are you Superman?
Later.
I just go without sleep. Sleep is highly overrated! I might not respond till maybe Sunday. I have some hefty final papers due in four weeks and if I get a jump on them soon, I won't get slammed in the end. Ugh!
Post a Comment
<< Home