On 2/26/13 3:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"jps" wrote in message ...


And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It
all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were
all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911.

-----------------------------------------

Indeed. The stage was set back in 1998 when then President Clinton
signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" which passed the House by a vote of 360
to 38 and by the Senate by unanimous consent. The Act essentially
established a policy for regime change in Iraq. Here's what Clinton had
to say back then:

"Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare
capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism;
2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157
aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has
actually greatly understated its production.... Over the past few
months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to
rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet
another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating
conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still
not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt
here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to
protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass
destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary
to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has
stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of
Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production
program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the
future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some
ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop
this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for
the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn
commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international
community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right
on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And
some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal...." ....
President Bill Clinton, 1998

One could say that Clinton talked the talk but Bush walked the walk.




One might say that Clinton was smart enough to talk the talk, and Bush
was dumb enough to walk the walk.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:23:59 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 17:06:33 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

One might say that Clinton was smart enough to talk the talk, and Bush
was dumb enough to walk the walk.

Talk translated into bombing and the rest of the world was getting
weary of it. We were running out of allies by 2000. It was basically
just us and the Brits by them. Even the Saudis were getting tired of
hosting us. That was why it was so easy for OBL to get recruits from
there (19 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi) and they chipped in massive
amounts of money.

Suddenly you're concerned about the rest of the world??? You don't
givee a crap about it for anything else.