Does anyone get the sense that President Clinton was just tired of George Bush’s neverending stream of b.s. today?
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors
Now he decides to become creative!
Tired, maybe. Delusional certainly:
“Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq “virtually alone”
Is he using a special Arkansas definition of “virtually”?
“Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq”
or perhaps he meant our 49 allies indicated we were “virtually alone.
What is it that makes old Democrats bitter, irrational ideologues? I hope Clinton puts down the Gore Kool Aid ladle soon. He’s been OK up to now.
Dugger
Dugger,
I think he meant the International community wasn’t exactly ‘with’ us. Sure we had 49 countries in the ‘coalition of the willing’ but as Kerry mentioned in the debate besides UK and Australia the rest of the coalition combined was smaller than the population of like Iowa or some such nonsense.
Not exactly George Bush Sr’s coalition. I think one could describe it as virtually alone.
I think what makes old Democrats bitter is that his successor is totally fucking up the country by catering to the wealthy and religious right. I think deficit, poverty, war, and Katrina is making more than just Democrats a little pissed.
Does anyone know what it takes to repeal the 22nd Amendment? When do we start?
You don’t know? I thought you know everything (even the [secret] origin of wealth)
Hehe
Of course I know how wealth is created. I’m a Democrat, aren’t I? We always make this country rich.
Do you even know what the 22nd Amendment is? Because you can’t get the joke unless you do. Go ahead and google it, I won’t tell.
Dugger,
Well since the US spends more money on ‘defense’ than the next [I think] 5 countries combined it would stand to reason that we would not only front most of the cost but also most of the man power in any ‘coalition.’ At the risk of sounding elitist, I don’t put much stock into the ’support’ from countries that offer no man power or logistical support and most likely only signed up to keep good standing with the United States.
The Kerry debate point was about who our allies in this coalition are, they aren’t the traditional allies we think of as being leaders of the free world and that might reflect something about the opinion of the International Community.
In the UN, not all votes are created equal, there are those countries on the security counsel that are the ‘elite’ countries in shaping the world, the fact that other than the UK we were alone in this action shows a real lack of commitment from those leaders.
robot,
Guess we’ll just disagree on “virtually” here. IMO, any sustainable military action to be taken with the US as a member of a coalition means the US will take the huge share of that actual combat action. In the first Gulf War, the US and Great Britain suffered about 500 total deaths. The only other Eurpean casualties were two – by France. How is that not also “virtually” alone? Does Clinton oppose and criticize Gulf I – for the same reason? Or is his criticism mere ugly ideological partisanship – a position to which he has not previously stooped.
Dugger, Put it in Perspective
Are you kidding Dugger? Why don’t you look up the composition of the first coalition and what exactly they sent, in terms of money, materiel and men. Then compare to Bush Jr.s coalition. Get real. In the second coalition, if you allowed a military plane to fly over your country you could be in the coalition of the willing.
Sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy.
If your country sent 23 out of work policemen so you could get $20 million in foreign aid, you could be in the coalition of the willing.
If your country sent a cub scout, a can of spam and a dog with worms to Iraq, you could be a member of the coalition of the willing.
Wasn’t France a member of the coalition?
robot
I’m confused. You seem to be saying its logical we bear the preponderant combat burden. And, I assume, that does not mean we are “virtually alone”. The argument, then, is that the allies of the first coalition were so superior to the second, that the second is “alone” and the first not? Not so fast. Coalition I = 34; coaliton II = 49. Coalition I did have France and Germany , II did not. But II had Japan and Phillipines, I did not. Still think II is “virtually alone” and I not?
Miitterpidge,
If it sounds like Jeff Foxworthy, then an illiterate redneck is besting you intellectually. First, see above. II: 49 partners, w/Japan, and Phillipines; I: 34 partners, Germany and France. Then as to your argument that the allies were so much superior in I versus II, that they did so much more, how exactly do you explain a very similar death rate (roughly 10%) of US casualies versus coalition casualties for both wars? How could that be if you are right? No, sadly, Bubba reverted to cheap, crass partisanship.
Dugger
Midderplidge,
Good point. The US obviously sent the most manpower, but the financing came almost entirely from overseas, especially Japan. An even bigger issue was the support from other Arab countries like Egypt and even Syria. By getting buy-in from other Arab nations, Bush Snr. ensured that the region had a stake in the mission’s success. Only Jordan (because of the Palestinian population) and Arafat opposed the war. The consequences of failing to get any sizable Arab or Muslim state behind the Iraq war – sizable meaning other than Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Qatar – are still being borne today.
The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by Congress to be $61.1 billion. Other sources estimate up to $71 billion. About $53 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States; $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no forces due to the treaties that ended WWII). About 25% of Saudi Arabia’s contribution was paid in the form of in-kind services to the troops, such as food and transportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Now THAT is a coalition. How much of the costs of Gulf War II have been borne by the Arab World? I’ll give you a hint. It starts with 0 and ends with 0.
Bill Clinton, like any other true patriot, is disguisted with the way this war is going and how this country is turning into hell in the handbasket. The one thing cons can’t squirm away from is that is the country better off now than it was then?
I think you folks are missing what I think iws the best part of Clinton’s comments:
“What Americans need to understand is that … every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts,” he said.
“We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else.
“We depend on Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Korea primarily to basically loan us money every day of the year to cover my tax cut and these conflicts and Katrina. I don’t think it makes any sense.”
It DOESN’T make any sense, and no sane person could CLAIM that it makes any sense. That statement right there shows graphically how George W. Bush is simply destroying America. He has BANKRUPTED us, and we don’t even have anything to SHOW for it. What we have is PERMANENT WAR, which meanswe have been forced into permanent overspending, and permanently increasing the deficit.
For NOTHING.
George W. Bush has mortaged America. And we don’t even have anything to show for it.
49 Allies? Ya…the Iraq invasion is right up there with D-Day…
You koolaid drinking nitwit. I’m tired of it.
JK
Well, since we are using Wikipedia as a reference and talking about a never ending stream of B.S….
Yeah- right. Like a well oiled machine….
But I don’t fault Witt for that one either. For people who understand the science of logistics, we understand that you can’t just fly in like Superman and make things right in a jiffy after a hurricaneBut Clinton’s whole discussion of Iraq was almost comical…Hmmm. Now which acting President of the United States endorsed as official U.S. policy “regime change” in Iraq in the 90’s?And which former U.S. President said this?:
And this:
And this:
And this:
And THAT is just Bill Clinton. If George Bush lied, then what about all of these and these.
So with all due respect, Mr. Former President, you might want to check the memory hole before you try to revise what you and your fellow party mates actually said in the past. Your hindsight is amazing but your facts leave a little bit to be desired.
Bill is grandstanding again. His toadies probably said, “Hey, Bill, you don’t want to look like you were getting friendly with a Republican (EEEeeewww!), so, as soon as this Katrina BS is over, say some nasty things about them.
And since Bill is all about asking his toadies, “Who am I today?” He does what they say.
And, SadieB, my comment here made a specific reference to the 22nd Amendment…
Is that where you stole your joke?
(Is it really a joke if it makes absoluteley no sense?)
Except your reference from Wikipedia reflects someone’s OPINION, while my cite reflects OBJECTIVE FACT.
Maybe you cons should come up with a better plan for America than “But Bill did it too”- especially when he didn’t.
And THAT is just Bill Clinton. If George Bush lied, then what about all of these and these.
However, only one of these presidents presented these “lies” before congress, and only one of these presidents ever committed troops in Iraq based on those lies. So, if they both “lied” then one has blood on his hands on the other does not.
Silly how a few thousand American soldiers being killed, and tens of thousands more Iraqi civilians, really changes the equation, at least to the “reality-based” community.
“If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out,” Clinton.
BINGO, Billy Jeff!!!!
Now, for the bonus round. On WHOSE shoulders did that responsibility fall? Here’s a hint: Their party’s symbol is a Jackass.
“Maybe you cons should come up with a better plan for America than But Bill did it too – especially when he didn t. ”
Uh..Loopy? I rarely talk about the former President in refenence or comparison to the current administration, however, this post is specifically about President Clinton, and what he said this weekend, thus it is entirely appropriate to discuss what he says vs. what he said and what happened in the past since he specifically talked about what his administration supposedly did.
Are you saying that what I posted is untrue? Did the exchange between Jackson and Witt not take place? Did the former President, et. al. not say any of those things about WMD in Iraq?
Is that your best response? “especially when he didn’t”?
How many people died in the Iraq war under Clinton, Marty? It’s another one of those numbers that started with 0. That’s the difference- Clinton “thought” there were WMD’s, but didn’t risk American soldiers. Bush “thought” there were WMD’s, or at least that’s what he says, and led 1900 American soldiers (and counting) to slaughter.
Loopy, you’re not seriously suggesting that Clinton’s fearfulness about committing troops on the ground in Iraq was a good thing?
We have yet to discover the depths of Clinton’s left wing pacifism, just as it took us years to discover the same thing about Carter.
They will both end up as veritable footnotes in American history, like Fillmore and Coolidge.
“And, SadieB, my comment here made a specific reference to the 22nd Amendment& ”
I followed that link and you made no reference to the 22nd Amendment whatsoever. You said something about Democrats scratching their heads about “it” happening again, though it wasn’t clear what the “it” was you were talking about. Another stolen election maybe? Another lost war?
So I guess you don’t know what the 22nd Amendment is. It was the one passed by the Republicans after Roosevelt won his fourth term, limiting presidents to two terms. If it hadn’t been for that amendment Clinton would be president today. If we repeal it, he can be president again.
Now you get the joke?
Frank;
Have you abandoned higher threads?
Clinton s fearfulness about committing troops on the ground in Iraq was a good thing?
Frank;
What factual data can you provide that Clinton was fearful?
It’s pretty clear that Clinton’s reluctance to attack Iraq was based on them not being a real threat, or at least not one requiring ground troops. They were contained, as we know now.
And 1900 soldiers and about 100,000 Iraqis had their life. And gasoline was about $1.00 a gallon.
SadieB: The comment I made that referred to the 22nd Amendment included a link to an editorial that mentioned it. Sorry you missed it.
The reason your so-called joke is pointless is because it is not true that Clinton could be President again, unless the new amendment wre specifically written to allow Presidents who had previously been forbidden to run for a third term to now do so. Otherwise, it was forbidden when he was President, and he couldn’t do it now.
Why do you think there’s a “Truman provision: in the 22nd Amendment?
So it’s a stupid, complicated quip, at best…
A joke?
Nah.
Loopy: gas was a $1.00 a gallon? When? in 1988? That was 17 years ago…
Leo: Prove he wasn’t.
No Frankie boy, in the late 90’s. In fact in Newark NJ I paid as little as 80c a gallon. I can understand why you don’t remember, you were too fixated on Clinton’s penis to pay attention to what was going on in the world.
You paid $.80 a gallon in Newark, N.J.? Well, that clinches it…
That must have been the national average. Surely you have evidence for that — maybe a Polaroid of you at the pump?
And, loopy, I was no longer a boy, before you were born.
Frankie boy, do I have to own you AGAIN?
12/20/98
money.cnn.com/1998/12/20/home_auto/q_lundberg
The weighted average price for all grades of self and full service gasoline fell to just under $1.04 ($1.0355) per gallon, a decline of 1.12 cents per gallon over the past two weeks.
The weighted average price for self service regular fell to 97.54 cents per gallon, a decline of 1.14 cents per gallon.
The cheapest average price for gasoline was Tulsa, Okla., at 75.76 cents per gallon.
Maybe you should have gotten out more.
Maybe I should have had a car. And, of course, I should have realized that it was Clinton who kept the price of oil, and, thus, gas, down.
Oh, I get it, when something good happens during a Democratic administration, it’s not their doing, but when something bad happens, it’s their fault.
I don’t understand the relevance of your paragraph- did any US soldiers die in that raid? Wasn’t that the raid that eliminated what WMD’s were left?
I did notice that since the largest attack ever on US soil, there have been no other terror attacks on US interests, you have me there.
Except the anthrax attacks. Oh, yea, and the daily car bomb attacks in Iraq. By the way, what’s that guys name, the leader of Al Queda, I think his name is Bin Laden, did we get him? How’s he doing? Didn’t we “smoke him out of his hole”?
I wonder why you forgot this paragraph:
Hmmm?
Prove he wasn t.
Frank;
You made the baseless assertion as though it were common knowledge.
Prove he was.
Clinton was a known pacifist, who turned tail and ran in both Haiti and Somailia. That’s how I know.