Before Invading Iraq: Did you think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

[Laugh O. Grams]

No, he isn't the gold standard (more like brass). I just asked a question, because it seems to me that the people who are showing as no were the same ones to back Clinton in his strikes. Yes, it is possible to dislike the actions of both men in my world. I don't like a lot of things that Bush has done, however the war in Iraq is not one of them.

The silence that was coming out of Iraq before the war to me was very telling. I'm just curious as to how this poll would have ran in February of 2003.

I just don't get how in your opinion, President Bush preemptively striking Iraq is cool, but President Clinton preemptively striking Iraq is not cool and "wagging the dog." It's been pretty well documented, but for a few Right Wing talk show hosts, that Clinton's assult on Iraq/Syria/Al Queda were a bit more than a political smokescreen. I just don't understand how, as a supporter of America's current Iraq policy, how anyone would complain at all about what President Clinton did, unless it comes from a purely partisan point of view. Maybe I never will...

 

[lw49033]

So now President Clinton is the gold standard to which all US Presidents are compared? I liked President Clinton, and all, but he's hardly one to choose as the highest common denominator...and is it possible to dislike the actions of both men in your world? Just wondering...'cause as a Dem, I didn't knee-jerkingly agree with everything he did either.

Amen to that! I'm tired of the "Clinton defense" the Republicans are always trotting out, as though anyone who didn't want Clinton impeached for oral sex thought he was a white knight on horseback. I thought he was a redneck bum and still do, so "Clinton did it too!" carries no weight with me.

 

[What the Heck]

I just don't get how in your opinion, President Bush preemptively striking Iraq is cool, but President Clinton preemptively striking Iraq is not cool and "wagging the dog." It's been pretty well documented, but for a few Right Wing talk show hosts, that Clinton's assult on Iraq/Syria/Al Queda were a bit more than a political smokescreen. I just don't understand how, as a supporter of America's current Iraq policy, how anyone would complain at all about what President Clinton did, unless it comes from a purely partisan point of view. Maybe I never will...

And I don't understand the same thing...why was it ok for Clinton, but in 2001 Hussein suddenly made them all disappear (is that where David Copperfield is?). Clinton's assault is pretty well documented, but Bush's wasn't? Bush's assault needed more investigation, but Clinton's 5 years earlier was right on target? This isn't a Clinton did it too argument, this is wanting to understand the 40% who say they didn't believe he had the Weapons. Do those same 40% believe he didn't have them in the 90's? Then they must believe that "well documented" decision by Clinton was nothing but Wag the Dog.

Personally, at the time of the attacks by Clinton, I didn't believe him. It wasn't until 2002 and 2003 when Iraq was not backing down themselves that I started to believe that Clinton might have had the proof (although the timing is still suspect). Yet for those that believe the Clinton was right and Bush was wrong, I have to wonder - what happened to the weapons in 5 years?

 

[What the Heck]

Amen to that! I'm tired of the "Clinton defense" the Republicans are always trotting out, as though anyone who didn't want Clinton impeached for oral sex thought he was a white knight on horseback. I thought he was a redneck bum and still do, so "Clinton did it too!" carries no weight with me.

First of all, it wasn't impeachment about oral sex, it was impeachment about perjury and conspiracy. Sounds a little more important than oral sex.

Secondly, it isn't about the "Clinton defense", it's about what a former President did in the exact same type of situation. Or is it your contention that we should just ignore those 8 years completely? I'd like to but those 8 years led directly to the worst attack on US soil ever. Oh yea, thats right, it happened on Bush's watch so it was all his fault, in January of 2001 was when the started planning, training, traveling over here (ignore the arrest of Atta in 1999, that was Clinton's watch and we are ignoring the man in the corner for those 8 years). Just because they started planning it in what 1993, 1994, those years don't count.

Personally, I get tired of the "it's the Republicans trotting out the Clinton Defense" defense as if that repudiates the points made. Clinton didn't exist! Talk about the emporer having no clothes.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And I don't understand the same thing...why was it ok for Clinton, but in 2001 Hussein suddenly made them all disappear (is that where David Copperfield is?). Clinton's assault is pretty well documented, but Bush's wasn't? Bush's assault needed more investigation, but Clinton's 5 years earlier was right on target? This isn't a Clinton did it too argument, this is wanting to understand the 40% who say they didn't believe he had the Weapons. Do those same 40% believe he didn't have them in the 90's? Then they must believe that "well documented" decision by Clinton was nothing but Wag the Dog.

Personally, at the time of the attacks by Clinton, I didn't believe him. It wasn't until 2002 and 2003 when Iraq was not backing down themselves that I started to believe that Clinton might have had the proof (although the timing is still suspect). Yet for those that believe the Clinton was right and Bush was wrong, I have to wonder - what happened to the weapons in 5 years?

I understand what you are saying, and I will freely admit that both President Clinton and President Bush were wrong in their belief that Iraq had the WMDs that Hussein bragged about.

I think that a large majority of Americans can accept Clinton's mistake and not Bush's because of the difference in the scope of the assault. President Clinton's "casuality free" air/missle assault was misinscule in comparison to President Bush's all out war. Your average American can overlook a little mistake, but when kids are coming home wounded or worse by the thousands, the American public is not willing to accept the same flawed reasoning for attack. President Bush definitely stuck his neck out, but unfortunately, it always doesn't work out for the best.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

First of all, it wasn't impeachment about oral sex, it was impeachment about perjury and conspiracy. Sounds a little more important than oral sex.

Secondly, it isn't about the "Clinton defense", it's about what a former President did in the exact same type of situation. Or is it your contention that we should just ignore those 8 years completely? I'd like to but those 8 years led directly to the worst attack on US soil ever. Oh yea, thats right, it happened on Bush's watch so it was all his fault, in January of 2001 was when the started planning, training, traveling over here (ignore the arrest of Atta in 1999, that was Clinton's watch and we are ignoring the man in the corner for those 8 years). Just because they started planning it in what 1993, 1994, those years don't count.

Personally, I get tired of the "it's the Republicans trotting out the Clinton Defense" defense as if that repudiates the points made. Clinton didn't exist! Talk about the emporer having no clothes.

I think most even headed Americans can see that as far as 9/11, both President Clinton and Bush let us down. It's where we go from here that's important, and many Americans, if not a majority, think that we could, and should be doing things other than searching for WMDs where they don't exist or placing our brave men and women of the armed services in the middle of the current Iraqi civil war....

 

[lw49033]

Personally, I get tired of the "it's the Republicans trotting out the Clinton Defense" defense as if that repudiates the points made. Clinton didn't exist! Talk about the emporer having no clothes.

It's a relevant point to raise if you are talking to a Clinton fan. Not everyone in America is either pro-Clinton or pro-Bush.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

It's a relevant point to raise if you are talking to a Clinton fan. Not everyone in America is either pro-Clinton or pro-Bush.

And yet it seems as if that's the way it is. Isn't it wild that there are so many Americans who will stand up next to the politician of their choice and defend them come hell or high water, even if that politician is found to be dead wrong? I just don't get the whole thought process.