How Low Will We go?

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

"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."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

I know what you are thinking. But what did Hillary have to say in all of this?

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton was and still is one of the most corrupt presidents in US history, and his success was luck and timing. If it was not for the tech boom, he would not have produced shit.

On August 31, 1998, Ritter said: "Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program."

In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.

In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.

Why don't you say how you really feel?

You have 2800+ posts. Surely you not just realizing now that there are terrorist sympathizers on this forum.

 

Have links to your arguments Wacky? Or are these simply wickipedia entries made by conservatives to detract from the real facts? You are posting second and third hand material, whereas I supplied transcripts of interviews and actual news casts.

 

$400,000, is small potatos compared to what Bush and Cronies have garnered. And many exiled Iraqi nationals recieved a whole lot more than that from our tax funds and government funding. As Iraqi nationals I think they were entitled to receive some funds. Ever heard of Chalabi?

He checked it out with the FBI, who did Bush and company check their intelligence out with?

 

PBS Interview August 31st, 1998. Public Broadcasting System (01/20/2003)

Arons, Nicholas (June 24th, 1999). Interview with Scott Ritter. Fellowship of Reconciliation

Lynch, Colum (July 27 2000). "Ex-U.N. Inspector Ritter to Tour Iraq, Make Documentary". The Washington Post:

http://www.preciouslife.net/show-procedure.asp?Procedure=3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

http://www.cc.org/actionalert.cfm

 

He learned from his predecessor.

Bill Clinton-Has set more records that Barry Bonds
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Straight from Ritters mouth. What would he have to gain by vouching for himself?

 

Yeah I remember watching most of those Wacky, but what specifically do they relate to? And some of your links have nothing to do with the discussion. Think if you throw enough links out that people will not bother to verify? The majority of them verify what I had to say.

Perhaps you'd like to highlight something for us to pay extra attention to. I'd especially be interested in how the "preciouslife" link has any bearing.

 

Perhaps you and Campbell want to call on God again, since you don't seem to be able to back up your arguments with facts.

 

God/Mohammed it's hard to tell which is worse at this point. You seem to have more respect for post counts than you do human life.

 

I threw that one in for good measure. Figured you could appreciate the subject matter. Look, I really don't care that much about this topic and have fast become bored of it. You are not stupid and know that facts, there is no point in knitpicking links. Many antiwar folk use Ritters arguments to hold all their water. The fact is that at the time the inspects were told to pack their shit and leave (by the UN) Ritter claimed that Iraq had WMD (in so many words), and a year later he pulls a 180. What is peculiar is that in this years time, there were no inspects.

Anywho, here is some more interesting history.

[size=+1]RECORDS SET[/size][size=-1]

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court[/size]

[size=-1]* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. [/size][size=-1]A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. [/size][size=-1]47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.[/size]

[size=-1]Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."
[/size]

[size=+1]STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION[/size]

[size=-1]- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3[/size]

[size=+1]CRIME STATS[/size]

[size=-1]- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122[/size]

[size=+1]SMALTZ INVESTIGATION[/size][size=-1]

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million[/size]

[size=+1]CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED[/size]

[size=-1]Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.[/size]

[size=+1]OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA[/size]

[size=-1]Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.[/size]

[size=+1]ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S[/size]

[size=-1]Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.[/size]

[size=-1]Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697[/size]

[size=-1]FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.[/size]

[size=-1]I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1[/size]

[size=+1]THE CLINTON LEGACY:
LONELY HONOR[/size]

[size=-1]Here are some of the all too rare public officials, reporters, and others who spoke truth to the dismally corrupt power of Bill and Hill Clinton's political machine -- some at risk to their careers, others at risk to their lives. A few points to note:[/size]

[size=-1]- Those corporatist media reporters who attempted to report the story often found themselves muzzled; some even lost their jobs. The only major dailies that consistently handled the story well were the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.[/size]

[size=-1]- Nobody on this list has gotten rich and many you may not have even heard of. Taking on the Clintons typically has not been a happy or rewarding experience. At least ten reporters have been fired, transferred off their beats, resigned, or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals. Whistleblowing is even less appreciated within the government. One study of whistleblowers found that 232 out of 233 them reported suffering retaliation; another study found reprisals in about 95% of cases.[/size]

[size=-1]- Contrary to the popular impression, the politics of those listed ranges from the left to the right, and from the ideological to the independent.[/size]

 

Goddamn, your posting too fast Gardener.

 

I am not interested in Clinton, he's past tense. What have you got on Scott Ritter?

 

Are you high? You're starting to lose me. 10/4 Over and out.

 

I'm not interested in Ritter, he's past tense.

 

Scott Ritter is more important right now since we are looking at going to war with Iran. Tell us why we should.

 

The post that I asked you if you were high was my 420th post. 420. Does that make you paranoid?

 

Don't give me anti abortion pages, tell me why we should kill more people. These are people not zygotes.

 

I don't care what color your hair is, why should I care how many posts you've made? What I care about is preventing the loss of anymore innocent lives, in this never ending war to grab the middle east and it's resources.

 

Come on, we have gone through this before. I do not think you should enter a war with Iran. That would be the biggest mistake the US can make. (Worse than Iraq). The only action that could give the US the results it wants is if the government was internally overthrown. The Mullahs are aware of this danger, as there is a movement. Very unlikely, but not out of the realm of reality. While I sincerely believe that this world is nearing its end, any force against Iran will only accelerate the probability of global chaos. Think of a suspension bridge with global conflict acting as deterioration of the high tension cables. Sooner or later it will not be able to support itself and catastrophe will follow. This is where we are heading. I am just wondering if we are going to kill ourselves, or if Mother Nature is going to do it for us. Heads or Tails?

 

It's not Iran declaring war it's the US. Why didn't N. Korea and their little escapades accelerate it?

But all you good Christians and the Zionnists are telling you the same thing. You are going to rapture. Guess what we meek... are going to inherit the earth. And when we do Bush and Company don't have any place here as far as I am concerned.

 

This is sort of going off subject, but what if this war was absolutely about resources. But not in how you believe. What if it was not about making Bush and his oil buddies rich, but about securing the resources so that America can avoid economic collapse? Are you willing to endure an all out collapse of the US economy? What if we are approaching a time where the oil consumption of the US can no longer be sustained unless vast resources are secured? How many Americans could survive if crude oil tripled or qaudrupled in price? What happens when there is not enough oil to feed the demand? What if this war is the only thing that will secure the future of America? Is it then acceptable? I'm not trying to start an argument, but these are questions that you will be facing someday.