quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin
My political philosophy ? No, I just want an end to a war that was started on lies.  I would in an ideal world like to see these dangerous liars exposed and brought to book, just like any other criminal.

But back to the OP, Bush saying he didn't know why the journalist chucked shoes at him, that just shows what sort of world he lives in, a world the rest of us don't live in, honestly, does he just read speeches written by others and put in an appearance when he is told to, because he seemed very misunderstanding as to why someone would wish to bestow on him the greatest insult in the arab world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Saddam was not helping Al Qaida.

You're right, he wasn't.

But the temptation of US troops in Iraq proved to be too much for al Qaida to resist--and al Qaida overreached in Iraq.

Better to fight them over there than over here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Bill Clinton said Saddam Hussein was a serious threat for the same reasons President Bush did... so why am I thinking that your plan is merely a way to try to destroy those with whom you have political disagreements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mrbob726

This "no WMD" thing is BS. Saddam had them, he used them (on his own people!) and his diddling with the UN weapons inspectors gave him ample time to stash them where they will probably be found some years hence - maybe in Syria, maybe even Iraq - who knows. That doesn't mean that we should have invaded, but give me a break - everyone in the world knew he had them and used them. The fact they haven't yet been found, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Even the staunchest of Dems in congress believed the same stuff that the CIA gave Bush. Blame the CIA maybe -. 

quote:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike


CLINTON: Good evening.


Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.


Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.


I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.


Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.


The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire. The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.


The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.


Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.


Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.


When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.


I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.


The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.


Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.


Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.


It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.


Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.


Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.


So Iraq has abused its final chance.


As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.


"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."


In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.


Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.


This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.


And so we had to act and act now.


Let me explain why.

(Full Text Here)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Oh look! You've successfully diverted the attention away from the real subject of the thread  ! Tell me... have you gone to the Rove School of Punditry?

quote:

military and security targets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

My only contention in this regard was that Bill Clinton labeled Saddam a serious threat, and the speech that I linked to proves that I am entirely correct in this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
your scratching post...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Al-Qaeda predates the Taliban. The Taliban is not a tribe it is a group of former religious students recruited by the Pakistani intelligence services for the express purpose of installing an islamic theocracy friendly to the Pakistani intelligence service.

Opium production inside Afghanistan plummeted under the Taliban. Worldwide heroin prices had spiked and have come down considerably since the Taliban lost power.

This is all easily verifiable so look it up and verify who is telling the truth.

Again, I have done my homework and the term Al-Queda was entirely created (or never popularized) to give a name to some ficticious network of terrorists against which we were now to go to war. There was never any network or were there underground bunkers or anything even approaching the spin this admin. wants to put on 9/11 and just who did it.

For all I believe anymore...Al-Queda could have been a group we kept on the payroll and stashed so we could have somebody to blame for any false flag op.

Jihad translated as many words are, generally...means struggle. That struggle can be against anything even their own govts.

The US (CIA) and the Taliban made a deal. Allow the recreation of opium fields and let it rebuild the cash flow to the farmers the belief being there is nothing else immediately available. We've even helped re-create cocane productions under the guise of some of it...some of it going for pharmacy.

I've seen video of the Taliban at the white house with Bush. I guess they could have been actors but to what end.

There were many govts. and intelligent services around the world that warned us that something was coming 9/11. The Isrealis broke their lease ONE WEEK before 9/11 and moved their offices to Norfilk, Va. WHY ?

A tribe can really be a word to decribe almost any group whether on religious or ethnic grounds or in fact...almost any grounds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

And what would the "real" subject be, kitten. A pure, unadulterated Bush-bashing festival, without any pesky reality thrown in to stir things up and keep them interesting?

Go on, admit it. You'd be bored to death if you didn't have people like me to try to use for your scratching post...

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Oh look! You've successfully diverted the attention away from the real subject of the thread  ! Tell me... have you gone to the Rove School of Punditry?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Better to fight them over there than over here.