Israel and Leba-nin

It's been kind of amusing to watch this thread evolve from the proper way to prounounce Lebanon, to "is this the apocalypse?," to "my president can beat up your president!"

And Songbird, you may be on to something with the War.com idea. They have those little cameras in the smart bombs, so can't they rig up a way to show it live on pay per view? If somebody will shell out $49.95 to watch a WWE PPV, there's gotta be an audience for this. Might even pay for the whole war by itself.

 

I paid to watch Foreman KO Moorer, so I'd pay to watch this war live.

 

Sadly, no.

Let's say every one of the 6 billion people on the planet ordered it at $49.95 per.

That comes out to about $300 billion.

Estimates are that the war will cost in excess of $700 billion.

So if we can talk every into subscribing TWICE, we'll almost be there.

Almost.

 

What's $400 billion between friends?

 

I wouldn't be so sure. Until recently, Clinton supported Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I believe Clinton would have done things different in the run-up to the war, but had Saddam not allowed in inspectors, Clinton would have gone in. You google Bill Clinton Bush Iraq war, you will find plenty of links where Bill criticizes Bush's handling and planning of the war and basically says that our handling of the war had been FUBAR-ed beyond belief, but he never says that he definitely would not have attacked Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Brokaw and Koppel believe that Clinton would have gone in (Yes, that is a NewsMax link, but it simply contains a MTP transcript):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/28/123330.shtml

 

I don't think so for the following reasons.
1) No neocons in important positions slobbering over the notion.
2) Therefore, no access for, among other people, Chalabi.
3) Therefore, no ginning up fake intelligence, no leaning on the analysts at CIA, no bullshit presentation by Colin Powell at the UN.
4) Therefore, no casus belli that the country would accept.

That Clinton has supported the decision in the past seems more to me like the Ex-Presidents protection Society than anything else. And, Your Holiness, I would remind you that the inspectors WERE back in there, which is where all the information was coming that pointed out our WMD argument was barefaced non-fact. They left because they were told we were going to begin bombing.

 

"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 [the USA], 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

 

thanks for checking in, Boom.

 

Marvelous.

More 1998 quotes . . . which mean squat when weapons inspectors in Iraq five years later --- in February 2003 --- basically say, "Nothing to see here."

Gee, maybe I should find some 1998 quotes telling me how great my Tennessee Vols are.

Or maybe I should look at the present situation and base my opinion of the screwed-up program on that.

Which would be more accurate?

 

You guys are amazing. You cling to hypotheticals like "Clinton wouldn't do that," then when the evidence is presented, the response is: "That's all old."

Clinton left office in 2001. I know that's really hard to grasp, but yes, it is true.

Thus, anything from his lameass admin would be dated before early 2001.

 

Gubba-guba-gubba.
Anyway, Boom, again, and again and again, there is nothing in any of those quotes that proves that Clinton would have done anything as stupid as these guys pulled in 2003.

 

But the quotes are still meaningless because they only represented an opinion based on the suspected knowledge at the time . . . without the necessary corroboration.

I feel reasonably certain that had Clinton said "we need to be ready for war because Saddam has WMDs" . . . and two months later he was told by weapons inspectors in Iraq that "No, he doesn't" . . . that his opinion and intended course of action just MIGHT change based on this new information.