Lets take a look at what all the Clintons may have been involved in

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Ironhawke
And, to be 100% fair here, let's look at just one section of the soon-to-be infamous Bush Death List. Deny ignorance, my friends.

While a totally fair response in defense of your team, the link is simply to the wiki page for 911. I was expecting some specific allegations.

Assuming for the moment that Bush has killed as many people as the Clinton's, I fail to see how that exonerates them.

I agree that this would not exonerate Clinton, assuming that the alleged connections are true.

HOWEVER, the article itself shows a clear bias against liberals, democrats (the author calls them "demorats" at one point), and "prochoice" people, etc.

So, it is not as if this article is unbiased nor doesn't carry offensive generalized statements about liberals.

Again that does not mean that Clinton doesn't have crime connected to him or his associates, including murder or drugs.

But, it is important for people of either party, including Republicans, to realize that many politicians at that level are connected to nefarious activities.

Hell, just George W Bush's invasion of Iraq is a war crime of aggression, with over 200,000 deaths. Ain't no conspiracy.

By that measure, one would have to indict FDR over all and, while he did gobs of damage to our republic, I wouldn't accuse him of personally murdering (tricky definition there I realize) any of the innocent people who died in WWII.

No, because the measure of guilt for innocent deaths is not born simply by being involved in a war.

It is born by waging an illegal war of aggression (that is an actual international legal term). If a country is forced into a war, such as we ostensibly were in WWII by Japan and Germany's antics, then FDR was not responsible for those deaths. The other countries were.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, factually engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, without self-defense. Hence, he IS culpable for those deaths. IF you go attack a country and it kills a bunch of people, you ARE responsible.

Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I am not a huge fan of Bush or the second Iraq war and I hate to be put into the position of appearing to defend it but, this persistent claim that it was illegal is simply not true.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Ironhawke
And, to be 100% fair here, let's look at just one section of the soon-to-be infamous Bush Death List. Deny ignorance, my friends.

While a totally fair response in defense of your team, the link is simply to the wiki page for 911. I was expecting some specific allegations.

Assuming for the moment that Bush has killed as many people as the Clinton's, I fail to see how that exonerates them.

I agree that this would not exonerate Clinton, assuming that the alleged connections are true.

HOWEVER, the article itself shows a clear bias against liberals, democrats (the author calls them "demorats" at one point), and "prochoice" people, etc.

So, it is not as if this article is unbiased nor doesn't carry offensive generalized statements about liberals.

Again that does not mean that Clinton doesn't have crime connected to him or his associates, including murder or drugs.

But, it is important for people of either party, including Republicans, to realize that many politicians at that level are connected to nefarious activities.

Hell, just George W Bush's invasion of Iraq is a war crime of aggression, with over 200,000 deaths. Ain't no conspiracy.

By that measure, one would have to indict FDR over all and, while he did gobs of damage to our republic, I wouldn't accuse him of personally murdering (tricky definition there I realize) any of the innocent people who died in WWII.

No, because the measure of guilt for innocent deaths is not born simply by being involved in a war.

It is born by waging an illegal war of aggression (that is an actual international legal term). If a country is forced into a war, such as we ostensibly were in WWII by Japan and Germany's antics, then FDR was not responsible for those deaths. The other countries were.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, factually engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, without self-defense. Hence, he IS culpable for those deaths. IF you go attack a country and it kills a bunch of people, you ARE responsible.

Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I am not a huge fan of Bush or the second Iraq war and I hate to be put into the position of appearing to defend it but, this persistent claim that it was illegal is simply not true.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Still wrong.

That resolution did NOT give permission for a UN-Sanctioned Chapter VII military action, especially bombing, invasion, and regime change.

Your very own link says exactly that....

It simply was a resolution about WMD's.

Remember, and I say this as someone who studied with high-level Security Council officials, no country nor coalition of countries can legally attack another country (such as Iraq) without a Chapter VII resolution specifically giving allowance for it. This quite simply did not exist.

Almost without exception these Chapter VII resolutions and the UN Charter do not allow for forced regime change, nor abject attacks. The only allowance for unilateral actions is in REAL self-defense.

Moreover, it has been proven time and time again that the WMD's were non-apparent, and that Iraq really didn't pose a threat nor did Saddam want to pose a threat.

All of it was a lie.

Therefore, it was a war of aggression, and evil.

a reply to: Dimithae

Sir I have a book that lists the coincidences of these deaths in an incredibly articulate manner.

I will post the title of this book once I find it and will update this post

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Ironhawke
And, to be 100% fair here, let's look at just one section of the soon-to-be infamous Bush Death List. Deny ignorance, my friends.

While a totally fair response in defense of your team, the link is simply to the wiki page for 911. I was expecting some specific allegations.

Assuming for the moment that Bush has killed as many people as the Clinton's, I fail to see how that exonerates them.

I agree that this would not exonerate Clinton, assuming that the alleged connections are true.

HOWEVER, the article itself shows a clear bias against liberals, democrats (the author calls them "demorats" at one point), and "prochoice" people, etc.

So, it is not as if this article is unbiased nor doesn't carry offensive generalized statements about liberals.

Again that does not mean that Clinton doesn't have crime connected to him or his associates, including murder or drugs.

But, it is important for people of either party, including Republicans, to realize that many politicians at that level are connected to nefarious activities.

Hell, just George W Bush's invasion of Iraq is a war crime of aggression, with over 200,000 deaths. Ain't no conspiracy.

By that measure, one would have to indict FDR over all and, while he did gobs of damage to our republic, I wouldn't accuse him of personally murdering (tricky definition there I realize) any of the innocent people who died in WWII.

No, because the measure of guilt for innocent deaths is not born simply by being involved in a war.

It is born by waging an illegal war of aggression (that is an actual international legal term). If a country is forced into a war, such as we ostensibly were in WWII by Japan and Germany's antics, then FDR was not responsible for those deaths. The other countries were.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, factually engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, without self-defense. Hence, he IS culpable for those deaths. IF you go attack a country and it kills a bunch of people, you ARE responsible.

Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I am not a huge fan of Bush or the second Iraq war and I hate to be put into the position of appearing to defend it but, this persistent claim that it was illegal is simply not true.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Still wrong.

That resolution did NOT give permission for a UN-Sanctioned Chapter VII military action, especially bombing, invasion, and regime change.

Your very own link says exactly that....

It simply was a resolution about WMD's.

Remember, and I say this as someone who studied with high-level Security Council officials, no country nor coalition of countries can legally attack another country (such as Iraq) without a Chapter VII resolution specifically giving allowance for it. This quite simply did not exist.

Almost without exception these Chapter VII resolutions and the UN Charter do not allow for forced regime change, nor abject attacks. The only allowance for unilateral actions is in REAL self-defense.

Moreover, it has been proven time and time again that the WMD's were non-apparent, and that Iraq really didn't pose a threat nor did Saddam want to pose a threat.

All of it was a lie.

Therefore, it was a war of aggression, and evil.

Let me first agree with the sentiment (minus the evil part).

I have been fairly careful in my wording thus far.

There had been 17 resolutions pertaining to Iraq up to that point, the last of which was unanimous.

If I remember correctly, it was Colin Powell himself that insisted on pursuing the 18th (or 2nd) resolution for the explicit authorization to use force.

As I understand it, he had been working behind the scenes to drum up international support for this and managed to convince the administration to follow strict UN procedure having been convinced by the representatives of France and Russia that this “final resolution” would be supported.

When it became clear that it would not be, the resolution was withdrawn and, instead, a “coalition of the willing” was formed with the expressed intent of not appearing to be dismissive of international consensus.

The "material breach" that was cited as the justification was based upon the failure of Iraq to account for thousands of chemical weapons which had been documented by UN inspectors but no longer accountable for when they returned after having been ejected and reinserted into the country.

Iraq claimed that they had an accounting anomaly and could not provide the location and evidence of their destruction.

That is pretty much the story from a legal point of view. It was neither a cut and dry violation of the spirit nor letter of any UN resolution up to that point.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Yeah when it comes to the Clintons,I think I'd rather mess with a mafia Don.
I might at least be able to make a deal with him for my life.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

That resolution did NOT give permission for a UN-Sanctioned Chapter VII military action, especially bombing, invasion, and regime change.

Your very own link says exactly that....

The link says several things, one of which is:

The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Let us also not forget that Bill Clinton is directly tied
through court documents to
a sex slave pedophile island.
It is proven he was present at a mansion, on an island, where underage sex slaves were kept.
He also invited the procurer/handler/fixer of the child sex slaves to his daughter's wedding.

www.independent.co.uk... .html
nypost.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk... an-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html
www.thesmokinggun.com...
www.thepoliticalinsider.com...
patdollard.com...
www.washingtontimes.com...
abcnews.go.com...
www.dailymail.co.uk...
www.ukcolumn.org...
There are lots and lots more from sources many of you would scream about, but here are just a handful of what is out there from reputable sources.

And we are supposed to think the wife who stood by through all of this and knows now if she didn't then, and all the other infidelities that have been made public.
We are to think she should be praised and held up as a role model for women.
And should be the next President of the US

Get a grip people.

To be honest I heard first time about it from your post. How could I missed that... Mrs.Clinton just losed all credibilty in my eyes. How could she stand by him at these times?

originally posted by: Voyager1
The Clintons add new meaning to mind your ******* business? I had no idea they were that far off the beatin path. You couldn't mow their grass without getting machine gunned.

To believe all the articles then it is so true...Could anyone see Hilary Clinton as a next president?

a reply to: aboveTopGun15

I can, quite easily.

Don't forget Obama. When it was decided he was going to be POTUS during the democrat primary, there were those three gay murders in his Chicago church almost immediately. Never solved and they were professional hits where robbery wasn't the motive. And when you realize that Hillary basically held Obama's leash in his first term( hand picked his staff and appointments, set his agenda, ran off anybody she didn't like even if they had supported Obama), there's still a Clinton connection there.
I always said that the Clintons were troublesome servants that needed cleaning up after, whereas the Bushes were higher up on the pecking order who were more loyal to the puppet masters. Obama was just created and owned outright and was a disappointment with his lack of salesmanship and tendency to gaffes. I think the PM don't want Hillary since she is too much of a liability and have derailed her campaign yet again.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
a reply to: aboveTopGun15

I can, quite easily.

OK, so after she gets her turn, then it's Jeb's turn? I thought we switched every 8 years. You need to give Chelsea time to get to 34 years old so we don't' have any more interruptions.

Another Clinton? Just no.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Ironhawke
And, to be 100% fair here, let's look at just one section of the soon-to-be infamous Bush Death List. Deny ignorance, my friends.

While a totally fair response in defense of your team, the link is simply to the wiki page for 911. I was expecting some specific allegations.

Assuming for the moment that Bush has killed as many people as the Clinton's, I fail to see how that exonerates them.

I agree that this would not exonerate Clinton, assuming that the alleged connections are true.

HOWEVER, the article itself shows a clear bias against liberals, democrats (the author calls them "demorats" at one point), and "prochoice" people, etc.

So, it is not as if this article is unbiased nor doesn't carry offensive generalized statements about liberals.

Again that does not mean that Clinton doesn't have crime connected to him or his associates, including murder or drugs.

But, it is important for people of either party, including Republicans, to realize that many politicians at that level are connected to nefarious activities.

Hell, just George W Bush's invasion of Iraq is a war crime of aggression, with over 200,000 deaths. Ain't no conspiracy.

By that measure, one would have to indict FDR over all and, while he did gobs of damage to our republic, I wouldn't accuse him of personally murdering (tricky definition there I realize) any of the innocent people who died in WWII.

No, because the measure of guilt for innocent deaths is not born simply by being involved in a war.

It is born by waging an illegal war of aggression (that is an actual international legal term). If a country is forced into a war, such as we ostensibly were in WWII by Japan and Germany's antics, then FDR was not responsible for those deaths. The other countries were.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, factually engaged in an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq, without self-defense. Hence, he IS culpable for those deaths. IF you go attack a country and it kills a bunch of people, you ARE responsible.

Nuremberg Trials: "To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

I am not a huge fan of Bush or the second Iraq war and I hate to be put into the position of appearing to defend it but, this persistent claim that it was illegal is simply not true.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Still wrong.

That resolution did NOT give permission for a UN-Sanctioned Chapter VII military action, especially bombing, invasion, and regime change.

Your very own link says exactly that....

It simply was a resolution about WMD's.

Remember, and I say this as someone who studied with high-level Security Council officials, no country nor coalition of countries can legally attack another country (such as Iraq) without a Chapter VII resolution specifically giving allowance for it. This quite simply did not exist.

Almost without exception these Chapter VII resolutions and the UN Charter do not allow for forced regime change, nor abject attacks. The only allowance for unilateral actions is in REAL self-defense.

Moreover, it has been proven time and time again that the WMD's were non-apparent, and that Iraq really didn't pose a threat nor did Saddam want to pose a threat.

All of it was a lie.

Therefore, it was a war of aggression, and evil.

Let me first agree with the sentiment (minus the evil part).

I have been fairly careful in my wording thus far.

There had been 17 resolutions pertaining to Iraq up to that point, the last of which was unanimous.

If I remember correctly, it was Colin Powell himself that insisted on pursuing the 18th (or 2nd) resolution for the explicit authorization to use force.

As I understand it, he had been working behind the scenes to drum up international support for this and managed to convince the administration to follow strict UN procedure having been convinced by the representatives of France and Russia that this “final resolution” would be supported.

When it became clear that it would not be, the resolution was withdrawn and, instead, a “coalition of the willing” was formed with the expressed intent of not appearing to be dismissive of international consensus.

The "material breach" that was cited as the justification was based upon the failure of Iraq to account for thousands of chemical weapons which had been documented by UN inspectors but no longer accountable for when they returned after having been ejected and reinserted into the country.

Iraq claimed that they had an accounting anomaly and could not provide the location and evidence of their destruction.

That is pretty much the story from a legal point of view. It was neither a cut and dry violation of the spirit nor letter of any UN resolution up to that point.

It still is a violation, plain and simple.

Many Americans do not realize that per international law and the UN Charter, it is illegal to act unilaterally or in a "coalition of the willing" even if there are WMD's, even if Saddam was resisting inspections.

Neither the US nor any other power has the legal right to be judge, jury, and executioner. This is fact. Your argument is that because of the concern over WMDs and because Saddam may have been resisting inspections, that therefore the US magically gets to judge and execute a war. This is false.

There would have to be a Chapter VII next resolution specifically allowing this.

Anyways, as you will learn if you peruse this site long enough and study international affairs history, it becomes quite clear that the motives for the Iraq War were anything but WMD's. It's all about geo-political power and chess games. Hence, evil.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

That resolution did NOT give permission for a UN-Sanctioned Chapter VII military action, especially bombing, invasion, and regime change.

Your very own link says exactly that....

The link says several things, one of which is:

The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions.

It does not matter. What you do not understand is that per international law, UK and US do not get to be the enforcers nor get to execute a war as punishment for violation of 1441. That would require ANOTHER resolution beyond 1441. Sorry. The law is clear.

This is just what our media told us back then to manipulate ignorant westerners.

The west decided for geo-political reasons (not WMD's) to take extra-legal action, with the goal of increasing control over the Middle East. That's it.

a reply to: Dimithae

Rather, it would be a colonyectomy.

So no Clinton is a republican like Bush and the neo-cons. I'll never make that mistake again. I'm not rich enough to vote republican.

a reply to: Ironhawke

So start a thread as such. Otherwise your bias is showing.

a reply to: macman

Just like every anti-Clinton person in this thread is NOT showing bias? (keeping it light, not fighting)

a reply to: Ironhawke

It is within the scope of the thread. It isn't about the Bush Family.

originally posted by: Ironhawke
And, to be 100% fair here, let's look at just one section of the soon-to-be infamous Bush Death List. Deny ignorance, my friends.

"Let's be fair"?

Nope. that is a typical spin Straw Man tactic. The Bushes were never mentioned by the OP. Why when someone points out ONE person's actions, does the argument shift to an equal but irrelevant OPPOSITE person's action?

Why when mentioning the Clinton's does on have to scream " But BUSH!"? When when pointing out a Democrat's corruption, do we go into Republican corruption?

It is quite possible to dislike one's action's and ALSO dislike the other's, simultaneously. This Straw Man type of deflection is not only disingenuous, it's BORING and predictable and adds NOTHING.

If I mention the Sun, do I prefer the moon? If I say I like the beach, does that mean I hate the forest? I dislike the taste of Pepsi, so I'm a coca-cola fanatic?

originally posted by: damwel
So no Clinton is a republican like Bush and the neo-cons. I'll never make that mistake again. I'm not rich enough to vote republican.

Approx. 9 of the top 10 of the richest politicians in Washington, are Democrats.