I apologize for being unclear. Clinton, not Democrats in general, would have gotten the benefit of the doubt from me on Iraq. Bush, not Republicans in general, would not.

But "benefit of the doubt" does not mean "support". It means I would not be immediately suspicious of his claims and his motives. I would still weigh his argument and decide if I agreed with it. If he pulled the same shenanigans the Bush administration did, I would have opposed the invasion under Clinton because, like Bush, he would not have made a compelling case for invasion.

__________________
Man up.

That does not appear to be true.

__________________
Man up.

BarneyFife states that So Barn I do not dispute that you have the right to conjecture as to whether Clinton would have gone into Iraq but along with that right you also have a analogous right to be wrong and you certainty exercised the later to the fullest extent. Just curious what basis is there to contend that 'no doubt ' existed regarding your conjecture of what Clinton would have done ?

My conclusion is Clinton would have been as wrong as W is.

__________________
"the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl?" -Bill O'Reilly about Spears

That does not appear to be true.

Yes, it does appear to be true.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Actually Powell said the quality was much more than was needed for what Saddam claimed he wanted them for.

"Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Second, we actually have examined tubes from several different batches that were seized clandestinely before they reached Baghdad. What we notice in these different batches is a progression to higher and higher levels of specification, including, in the latest batch, an anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. Why would they continue refining the specifications, go to all that trouble for something that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?" Colin Powell, Feb 2003

I believe that I would take a military man like Colin Powell's doubts over YOUR assurances there was nothing to it.


The urgency became apparent after 9/11. It was our wake-up call that we could no longer continue to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt. AND not all the intelligence was "years old." If one is willing to look at the BIG PICTURE...(and we know that Bush-haters are not).....one sees that it was far more than just one thing. It was never even about only wmd. In both Bush and Powell's speeches before the UN, it was also about Saddam's human rights record and what he did to his people.

Plus, it was a known fact that Saddam had one of the largest supplies of anthrax materials of any state. And yet......he never accounted for what he did with it. We were attacked with anthrax just after the 9/11 attacks and we still have no idea where the anthrax came from or who was behind it.

You would have us all believe that in between Feb 1998 when Clinton told us Saddam was a grave danger and threat and when we invaded..... Saddam turned into Mr. Nice Guy....got rid of everything voluntarily suddenly, and yet didn't document it so he'd be able to verify that. Even though he had gone to great lengths to hide and deceive his wmd's and program for years.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Did you support Clinton's decision to bomb Iraq in 1998?

Did you support Clinton's decision to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999?

If so....why?

If not.....why?

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

First, as stated above, I really don't think that we Brokaw is an authority on whether or not Clinton would have gone into Iraq. Second, if Clinton wanted to go to Iraq I would have expected much better reasons from him. Bush would give a reason, then when faced with opposition, would find another reason. That raised warning bells for me. Last, I would have expected much better planning for both the war and the peace than has been laid out by Bush. Had Clinton been as ham-handed at both of those, I would have opposed it.

__________________
Catz: "And, the ever-sage Volvo Driver:"

No, it does not appear to be true.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...q-intel16.html

__________________
Man up.

Yes. Just as I supported Bush bombing Iraq for various violations of the no-fly zone. That was all part of keeping Saddam in his box and punishing him for violating Security Council resolutions. All with the support of the UN, by the way. And all very cost-effective, too.

Bombing, BTW, is not quite in the same league as "invading and conquering."

Yes. That was responding to a clear and ongoing crisis.

__________________
Man up.

what basis is there to contend that 'no doubt ' existed regarding your conjecture of what Clinton would have done ?

I'm simply agreeing with Koppel and Brokaw. This is what they opined, and I think they are correct.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill