Did Clinton EVER Lie to get us involved in a War???

Internet Archive Wayback Machine ^ | 7/21/2003 | RaceBannon

[RJayneJ]

Sometimes, you have to rise above principle. };^D) Seriously, when we're stuck with something the Dems tried to demagogue, and they get bit in the butt instead of the Pubbies, there is a little poetic justice involved.

[billbears]

So the question is put to you. Because Clinton lied to get the Armed Forces of these United States into a war, does that condone President Bush doing the same?

The original question which I see you missed....

[Darksheare]

The original question that YOU missed as well, Mein Freund.
Maybe if you spent less time whining about how Sadman got spanked, you'd have more time to pay attention.
Reading is fundamental.
I also see that you have no clever response to the FACT that there are UNACCOUNTED FOR chemical weapons that SHOULD have been easily verified as to whether or not they were destroyed.
Instead, they are just missing.
Vanished, Alakapoof.
Presto change-o.

And OF COURSE CLINTON LIED!
BOTH OF THEM.

[billbears]

A lot has been said about Bush 'LYING' to get us into this war. Did Clinton ever lie to get us in a war?

Up at the very top of this page. By its wording, the question insinuates itself that it's a given that Bush may have stretched the truth to start the war

Reading is fundamental

You're telling me?

I also see that you have no clever response to the FACT that there are UNACCOUNTED FOR chemical weapons that SHOULD have been easily verified as to whether or not they were destroyed. Instead, they are just missing

Hell's bells then son. We need to ransack through the entire Middle East looking for these weapons. Up next? Syria and Iran, although I'm sure Jordan could probably get on the bad side sooner or later. Just stay away from our ally in Saudi Arabia, eh?

[Darksheare]

And you're ignoring the obvious.
Clinton lied to get us into Kosovo.
Or don't you remember that policing action, that is still ongoing?

And you still have yet to address the fact that there are unaccounted for chemical weapons that are KNOWN to exist.

[lorrainer]

That is what I don't understand--the 9/11 commission is upset with FBI b/c they did not pick up on the leads and before Hillary was shrilling about connecting the dots.

I cannot WAIT for the day when they release info on weapons found. I want to see the headlines in the papers, "HILLARY KNEW," like when she carried the paper that said "BUSH KNEW" for the cameras.

To all these naysayers: 1441 required that they show proof of having destroyed these chemicals/biologicals. Why isn't there the same outrage over the lack of documentation there? Sheesh.

[billbears]

And you still have yet to address the fact that there are unaccounted for chemical weapons that are KNOWN WERE KNOWN to exist.

Since they haven't been found, I'm going to go with the most obvious. They either were destroyed or are in a position that couldn't be accessed with '45 minutes', yet another statement the administration has backtracked on

[Darksheare]

Iraq?
Destroy them?
*Laughs at your naivete*

You hionestly believe that the country that LIED about the intent of the nuclear reactor they built, and lied about their chemical weapons usage against the Iranians and their own people, WOULD SUDDENLY AND MIRACULOUSLY TELL TEH TRUTH AND DO SOMETHING IT WAS TOLD TO DO?!
*Continues to laugh*

[Darksheare]

Read post 86.
IRAQ REFUSED TO SHOW PROOF OF DESTRUCTION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
why?
BECAUSE THEY NEVER DESTROYED THEM.

[billbears]

You hionestly believe that the country that LIED about the intent of the nuclear reactor they built, and lied about their chemical weapons usage against the Iranians and their own people, WOULD SUDDENLY AND MIRACULOUSLY TELL TEH TRUTH AND DO SOMETHING IT WAS TOLD TO DO?!

Well where are they? Surely before the war, every talking head in the administration was practically able to pinpoint where they were within 50 miles. It was if they were going to drive right to them!! Where are they? Oh, I forgot during the heat of battle Hussen had his troops transfer them across the desert to Syria or Iraq, apparently out of satellite range since no one saw this happen, and that's where we have to go next right? Okey-dokey!!

Sheesh, you ever think there's more plausible explanation? Of course not, the administration hasn't told you to have one yet have they?

[Darksheare]

Oh, okay.
Clinton: If he lied about sexually harrassing Paula Jones, where is the proof?
Same behavior from you.

You honestly believe that Iraq TURNED around and went AGAINST it's ESTABLISHED pattern of behavior? You honestly believe that Saddam suddenly went against his normal behavior and behaved himself for once?
Since you want to defend the Ragi so badly, SHOW YOUR PROOF OF HIS COMLPIANCE.

[Darksheare]

Oh, I forgot, you can't show proof of Iraqi compliance.
Because they never did.

You seemingly KEEP FORGETTING that Iraq was CALLED TO SHOW PROOF of compliance AND REFUSED TO DO SO.
I am sorry your hero got spanked, that's too bad.
But for you to sit there and be intellectually vacant and dishonest and say, "Oh, just because Saddam lied 99,999 times before, I didn't think he'd have the cojones to lie to me again!"

You are quite amasing in that respect.
Amusing as well.
You believe a liar.

[StriperSniper]

Did Clinton ever lie to get us in a war?

I guess that depends on your definitions of 'us' and 'war'.

Are our planes reflaged to NATO 'us'?

Are days of missile strikes on Iraq with none of our troops on the ground 'war'?

Just helping the leftists in the media and dims with thier spin points.

[billbears]

You honestly believe that Saddam suddenly went against his normal behavior and behaved himself for once? Since you want to defend the Ragi so badly, SHOW YOUR PROOF OF HIS COMLPIANCE.

Listen very carefully. I don't care if he complied or not, I don't care what happened to him. He's dead (most probably) and that's a good thing. However I don't like the main reason of the war to be such a straw man that has no proof other than the words of the politicians that called for same said war. As I've said a bag of beans and a centrifuge do not a WMD make

Secondly, I don't see that Saddam Hussein was any more a direct and immediate threat than the terrorist supporters in Saudi Arabia. And we call them allies. Talk about a laugh

[Darksheare]

BZZZZT wrong!
That was not the MAIN reason, but A reason.
And yes, there are still chem weapons in Iraq.
ALOT of sand to look through there, and Iraq has a history of burying things to hide them.
And I don't know anyone who wants to fly corn rows with ground penetrating radar looking for things that'll be fuzzy circles or itty bitty rows on the screen.
So it's more a case of finding paperwork and getting it translated, or someone being brave enough to come forward and speak.
Liek that guy that tried to hand Hans Blix a black binder full of information and instead of getting asylum, Blix handed him back.
That guy is now nowhere ot be found, his binder was handed back to the IIS thugs and the guy is prolly dead right now.

Your denial of Iraq's behavior is a masterstroke of intellectual Sominex.
You have so far shown inability to think through the simplest of KNOWN behaviors that Iraq has shown.
And for that, I am amused.

[My2Cents]

Difference: Bush didn't lie.

[onedoug]

Ef Clinton.

[Liz]

Who, me? Lie?

[familyofman]

"Do you think Clinton's lies justify the same from Bush?"

No, no, a thousand times no.

[MEGoody]

"Bush had made up his mind he was going to war long before any misleading was done by anyone. "We're going to war, now go get the evidence that we need to".

Everyone knew that Saddam was evil incarnate, had WMD and was a definite threat to the U.S. (Although he couldn't get WMD over the ocean to our front door yet, it was only a matter of time - and we knew he'd used them.)

So, what was your claim again?