Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do Not Let Clintons Near Whitehouse Red Phone

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:41 PM
Original message
Do Not Let Clintons Near Whitehouse Red Phone
http://americanvoice.pennsylvaniavoice.com/blog-2008/American-Voice_blog-2008.html

The Clintons were itching for an attack on Iraq long before Hillary Clinton voted for the resolution that gave President George Bush authority to invade Iraq in 2002. In 1998 Bill Clinton had cooked up a scheme to attack Iraq, Operation Desert Thunder/Viper. Please see Clinton's Desert Thunder is a Desert Blunder.

At the last moment, Bill Clinton flip-flopped and called the Iraq attack off. (Source: “Operation Desert Thunder”, Wikipedia)

But for whatever their reasons, the Clintons did not abandon their desires to have the U.S.A. attack Iraq. When President George Bush asked the U. S. Senate to give him authority to invade Iraq, Hillary Clinton jumped on the opportunity and voted to do so.

snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. If anyone recommends this I will lose my supper.
But I know someone will. And I just ate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hope you had a something to churl it in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. They answered the phone for 8 yrs
...and the result was eight years of the most peaceful times in recent American history.


Oh.....you forgot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. uh, it wasn't.
There was still a lot of interventionalist action during those eight years.

I mean, I supported most of it, but let's not make things up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. How many soldiers did we lose?
We lost no soldiers due to actions initiated by the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Yes, we did...
I would suggest you review the history of US military interventionism in the 1990's before you make factually untrue statements. (Somalia in 1993 would be a good place to start.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Check your facts
...I said actions initiated by Clinton. Bush I started that conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. The next place to start is that same area in the news today...
Former Yugoslavia - e.g., Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia, etc., where 20,000 troops were sent by Clinton to participate in a nice little NATO bombing raid and a big chunk eventually stayed in the area beyond the year that he promised. Clinton even authorized funding to rearm the Bosnians.

But with the Clintons, war = peace, up = down, 2nd = 1st, losing = winning, and other such nonsense and their DU zombies believe the fiction.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. No troops lost
...and NATO initiated the action. learn how to read and comprehend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BumRushDaShow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Troops fighting =/= PEACE
Learn the difference between WAR and PEACE. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Araxen Donating Member (826 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Peaceful times?
I remember Bill Clinton lobbing bombs to try and take the heat off himself over BJgate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. oh please
you obviously don't remember, or you wouldn't say such a freeper comment.

disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. They were shooting at our planes
...we had to do something. Republicans just used it as a wag the dog moment because it was convenient. We now know they tried to convince Clinton to invade and he did not.

Propaganda gets old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
16. I don't think it matters...
unless people of the U.S. lose their lives. I do not think Clinton is solely to blame. Intervention via bombs had been our Foreign Policy for a long time.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html
Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
Equally unsubtle are the announcements beginning in the early 1990s-coinciding with the pivotal demise of the Soviet Union-and continuing to the present, trumpeting Washington's desire, means, and intention for world domination, while assuring the world of the noble purposes behind this crusade. These declarations have been regularly put forth in policy papers emanating from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as from government-appointed commissions and think tanks closely associated with the national security establishment.
Here is the voice of the empire in 1992
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.... we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
1996: "We will engage terrestrial targets someday-ships, airplanes, land targets-from space.... We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space.
1997: "With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. Oh God What Disgusting Bullshit.
Shame on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uben Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. What part? Be specific.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC