Clinton lied too. He was a bad president.
Clinton's lies don't make Bush's lies okay. The press bought Clinton's lies just like it bought Bush's lies, because it's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Money and the control of oil- and both Dems and Reps will say anything as long as it fits the official policy of Empire building. (save for Kucninich and Ron Paul, of course)
Originally posted by Darth SpongeI agree with most of what's said here. Except I would hesitate to assume that lying is incompatible with good government. The main difference between Bush's saber rattling and Clinton's saber rattling is that, with Bush, there was alot more at stake.
Clinton lied too. He was a bad president.
Clinton's lies don't make Bush's lies okay. The press bought Clinton's lies just like it bought Bush's lies, because it's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's about Money and the control of oil- and both Dems and Reps will say anything as long as it fits the official policy of Empire building. (save for Kucninich and Ron Paul, of course)
Even when Clinton was telling the truth, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dying by the UN imposed, and US supported sanctions, but, all hypocracy aside, Bush lied (deceived) to sell a war which was both unjustified and ineffective.
If we'd have won the war by now, no one would have cared if Bush had lied. This is all to say that what made Bush's lies different from Clinton's was the fanaticism with which Bush pursued them. Clinton wasn't less imperialistic than Bush; he was just a more careful and reasonable emperor.
EDIT: I can't say with certainty that had Bill Clinton (or Al Gore) been president after 9/11 that we wouldn't be in the exact same war. He may have been just as careless and unreasonable in that context.
One quick point: this thread has got me thinking about something people on the left were saying before the war started.
Some said that the US never would have gotten into a war of regime change with Saddam Hussein if they had actually believed that he had WMDs. The reason being that a vicious leader like Hussein, who has proven his willingness to use WMDs in the past, would surely use them against the threat of regime change.
Just a thought.
Originally posted by MacSwainWooooo! I like the referenced quote. And the beloved Mr. Spock is right again, as always. Prolonging a crisis could be intertpreted as simply putting off an inevitable showdown, complete with armies shooting at each other, missiles taking down airplanes and ships, and a lot of other unpleasantness. If this can be procrasinated, and we can avoid the aforementioned hostilies EVEN FOR A DAY, then it's worth some saber-rattling, nut-hugging diplomacy. InSpock's example, if this can be avoided INDEFINITELY, well, all the better! Let's see--if my choices are 1) enforce some UN sanction that the rest of the world obviously doesn't care about by force of arms, resulting in the deaths of many.. OR 2) have a "prolonged" pissing contest with Saddam for the rest of eternity.....well hey, I'll take #2, Alex! And pass the water bottles and beer----we're gonna be at this for a long time! 😀
I am surprised you deviate from advice given by one of your leaders:
"We have found the only purpose of diplomacy - to prolong a crisis indefinitely." Lt. Commander Spock, StarTrek '69