Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!The man who delivered the Monica Bombs to Iraq is now criticizing President George Bush for his handling of the war in Iraq. Bill Clinton the man who was offered Bin Laden’s head on a silver platter on at least three occasions is criticizing Bush over his handling of the war on terror. Read this story in Yahoo News. Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction." The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme. Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq. The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton. On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29. People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind. "If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton. Who should have lined the Buses up Mr. Clinton? It was President Bush that should have done that? There were plenty of buses that could have been used, but Mayor Nagin, A member of your political party chose not to use them because he didn’t feel that school busses were good enough for such a “national emergency”. They were certainly good enough to haul voters around to vote for Mary Landrieu, again another member of your party Mr. Clinton. You criticize the Presidents handling of Hurricane Katrina when He mobilized federal assets and personnel much faster and by a much larger scale than you did during the natural disasters that occurred during your watch. That finger you love to wag around so much should be pointing at yourself Mr. Clinton. At Snopes.com they have compiled a list of quotes from prominent Democrats prior to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Snopes.com investigates urban legends and they have found all of these statements to be true. "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Can people STFU with the Buses crap. Here's a little exercise for you dying Republicans. 1. Who was going to drive the busses? All the School bus drivers were busy trying to keep their own families safe and secure. 2. Have the Mayors in Florida "BUS" people out from Hurricane Rita. 3. Has Jeb Bush EVER Bus anyone out to avoid a Hurricane in Florida. Please link your sources of information so I can verify. ThanxPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Downing Street Memo. Ofcourse the Democrats wanted to disarm Saddam Hussein. Because the Bush Admin said they had un-refutable evidence that Saddam had WMD's. And presented Doctored Satalite photo's and other phony evidence to world body during Colin Powells speech. Here's some quotes from Republicans when Clinton was at War. Yes, Republicans committed as they characterize it "treason" by going against a President during a Time of War. frame game The spin process explained. Yankee Go Home Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. By William Saletan Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT 1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition. 2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate." 3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience." 4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." 5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed." 6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons." 7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy." 8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out." 9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon." Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time. http://slate.msn.com/id/27730 So STFU
Doesn't anyone remember when Bush (H.W. *The good one*) used to rag clinton. I do, and apparantly you republicans and Brit Hume have forgotten about this!
Everything Clinton said is correct. As far as the buses, a state of emergency was already declared, giving the dept. of homeland security the power to act. In fact, those buses were rejected by FEMA, since they didn't have air conditioning, and it would have been impossible to round up drivers. FEMA said they would send their own buses, but they wouldn't drive them to where they were needed, due to the fact that it was a disaster area, go figure.
That is exactly what the White House says. This is not something that is worth illegaly invading a country and murdering tens of thousands of civilians over. I suppose that you are going to deny that George W Bush himself admitted that there was no evidence that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Swindlers like yourself are always saying that we can't believe the websites that criticize Bush even when they use Bush's exact words and public statements by the White House. And if Saddam is guilty of some war crimes, why are we not using the same war crimes courts that we (the US) used against the Nazis? It is because George W. Bush has pointedly and publicly repudiated the International Criminal Court in Hague, even renouncing the US signing of that treaty. Here is the text of the complaint against the US before the Court: article George Senior was actually convicted by this court of war crimes. Article The US government was convicted of war crimes in 1992, beyond any reasonable doubt. It was then and is now a rogue government of a rogue country that was then and is now engaged in violent activities against a smaller nation. A former President, George Bush Senior, and a current Vice President, Richard Cheney, are named as convicted war criminals in the findings of a legal War Crimes Tribunal. The site After a war crimes conviction, not only did the U.S. fail to turn over the parties found guilty, we know (as Brutus might deny) that the U.S. invaded Iraq again. US government is a conspiracy within the meaning of the Nuremberg Charter We were once taught that war crimes were the most heinous sort of crimes. We even legitimized the acts of people like Simon Wiesenthal who hunted down Nazi war criminals in the U.S. and arrested them at gunpoint. How is this different? Just because we haven't lost the war, that makes it right? And why exactly did Bush Jr. even want exemption from war crimes tribunals for himself, which he obtained in early 2003? Did he plan to commit war crimes in March of 2003? Yes he did.
Check your sources. I don't think the U.S. has ever ratified the Rome Statute and only those that ratify fall under its jurisdiction. I could be wrong, but I searched your link and found the list of nations that have ratified. The U.S. is not on that list. Thus it is impossible for Bush to renounce something never signed. Please keep in mind I am not undermining your greater point concerning war crimes, only that the U.S. does not fall under any jurisdiction concerning them. I simply have read everything you linked yet to speak properly on the war crimes subject itself. Additionally, to add credibility to your argument properly addressing the president would do wonders. It's not senior and junior.
Radicand, it's Junior to me. And he's not my president. He wasn't legally elected. Junior obviously thinks that there is some kind of jurisdiction or he would not have looked for an exemption for American troops. In that material, in those links I posted up there, there is a mention of Junior's successful attempts to gain exemptions from the International Criminal Court. Treaty ratified or not, he believes there would be jurisdiction if he didn't gain the examption. Also, he is literally asking to have it both ways. American war criminals are exempt from prosecution. I don't know of anyone else's who are. He wants to use the ICC but he does not want to be under its rule. This isn't right. There is no way to make it right. Bush either thinks that he has the bigger guns or he wants to set us up so that China can come in and "arrest" him and bust the US down as a rogue state. This year or next could be a pretty good time for it because most of our military is either overseas or tied up with the hurricanes. We'd better do some hard thinking because if we don't want to have to learn those damnable ideograms for a language, we're going to have to make it so that it will cost too much for the Chinese to invade. They can saturate our defenses with 1950s technology aided by a little technical knowhow like how to retrofit WWII bombs with smart technology and they won't pay even a hundred dollars a motherboard for those things. Saddam Schmaddam. We're so concerned with squashing piss ants that we're going to run right into a great wall without seeing it coming. And we act like we don't know what trouble is. Like it takes higher mathematics to know that ten cheap Kalashnikovs can beat one M-16 and that even our best jet fighters cannot take out a very high percentage of canvas-covered biplanes when they are outnumbered more than a thousand to one. We are not invulnerable unless we build up our internal strength and make ourselves invulnerable. It does not come to us as an act of God. It takes billions of human-hours of work. It takes the application of intelligence, not a lot but some. It takes bringing ourselves into contact with reality and taking responsibility for what's going on with our lives. It also takes having the will to defend our own lives.
Two things. First, Bush was legally elected. The legality issues stemmed from the persistent efforts of Gore and followers to carry out counting until Gore won. Two, Clinton was not my president either, but I respect him and will continue to address him properly. Your statements regarding Bush expresses a frame of mind that does make would be debaters confident of your ability to be truthful in debating. That is just an observation. Though, I do not recall reading anything specific. You are right someone must have advised of something legal or he would not be so concerned. It is that or he is seeking expediency politically. Again I could not confirm, but I would think those that have not ratified would be exempt. More conspiracy, I presume. If not, I have no idea what that was about! This much I do know much I disagree with the rogue state comment. That seems to me to come from those who simply view capitalism as evil and any aggressive military action as evil. I think an intellectual case could be made that we could have fought elsewhere while keeping him in check. But that does not mean that we wouldn't have to deal with him at some point. I agree with you on this point. Though, I am a little cautious about our vulnerability at this stage. But then, we may be using the term in different ways. Again, I agree with this statement. However again, I may not agree in the same manner. Although, I do have to ask. Do you think that the commander in chief affects our will to defend ourselves, or that our will effects who is the commander in chief?
The legality issues in 2000 stem from the Supreme Court halting the count before all the votes were counted.
The legality issues of the 2000 election also stem from findings that the voting machines were not only tampered with, they did not have legal certification to be used in the first place. Look around and see how many people want to cloud that issue or act like it never happened.
And don't forget Catherine Harris' felony list, which took the power to vote from many (mostly black) eligible voters.
Exactly, spidergoat. Harris needs to spend more time on her "make-up" and less time on her fucking "position," to get elected. The fucking ugly whore.
Well, at least, you admit that 2000 was about Gore trying to keep the voting alive until he won. So this what you have reduced the thread to? I was afraid of that. I'm out!!