It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Clinton Calls Iraq War 'Big Mistake'

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:17 AM

Agreed, but you have the groups wrong, I think. Why stretch to find a conspiracy when the evidence is there in black and white that PNAC, AEI, the Office of Speical Plans, and other neoconservative think-tanks, Plan B-style groups, and lobbying organizations had been planning the war throughout the 90s? I wouldn't call the President a puppet, but today's Republican party doesn't take it's marching orders from the usual suspects anymore. Bush Sr. was a realist, and strong enough to keep the neoconservatives in check. He would never have allowed Iraq to unfold as it has under the weaker Bush Jr., who took the advice of those promising the most rosy outcome, rather than the most experienced statesmen.

Thanks for the info and greetings Koji,

I am always ready to listen and learn. BTW, for us apolitical types, what are the PNAC and AEI?

Yes, maybe "puppet" as too strong a word, but I still find it sad that Bush 43 takes ALL of the flak for decisions not totally his own. As an American, I have to support my president, be he Republican or Democrat, right or wrong. I realize that he is, after all, only a man, and has faults and foibles just like the rest of us. His decisions are only as good as the intel and advice he is given.

I felt that my "another Vietnam" comment may have made it look like I'm for pulling out...egads!! No! No! No! I have the utmost respect for, and will give my full support to our brave men and women in uniform. I didn't make it clear that I was trying to show that the American public was getting weary of this war, and many have started advocating immediate pullout or at least a definite plan for pullout. Do they really understand the danger of creating that vacuum? It doesn't look like it! If the politicians give in to the weak of mind and pull out before the job is done, we'll all pay the price!!

[edit on 17-11-2005 by D_Emissary56]

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:44 AM
While Bush might not be the fastest fork in the foulangerie, every one of those bozos who're hoo-rawing him had themselves said that Saddam was a bad guy and he needed to go away.

Bush's two biggest errors, in my never-humble opinion, was that he listened to -- and believed -- a bunch of imbeciles in the CIA who gave him bad intel, then compounded the strategy by listening to -- and believing --Donald Rumsfeld instead of Eric Shinseki for advice on how to win the peace in addition to the war.

Dumber than a box of rocks? Probably. But he doesn't have near the hypocrisy that Kerry, Edwarsds, Rockefeller, and even Clinton demonstrate every time they ignore their own former (and carefully documented) raucous antipathy to the Saddam regime and start their quacking about their being -- and always having been -- against the war!

Bush lied, of course; he said he wasn't interested in nation-building and, naturally, he was. He wanted a stable (read: compliant) Westernized Iraq á là Turkey as a counterbalance to Syria and Iran. but I think anyone with a political IQ above room temperature knew and knows that, just as they realized that another key reason we went in there was to safeguard our oil supply.

And those are both good reasons, if you believe that safeguarding our energy supply and seeing a chance for peace in the Near East by lessening regional tensions are in the United States' national interest -- and I think they are.

Of course, neither goal succeeded very well, and nothing succeeds like success; so Dubya gets a beating due him, to which I will enthusiastically join in.

But the gang of goons on the other side of the political aisle were just as credulous as Bush was in listening to the CIA's crack-pipe dreams; and they have compounded their stupidity and venality by now taking the other side with their pious pronunciamentos.

This is simply one more example of why both the Old Parties in the United States comprise rascals, scoundrels, and fools; a pox on both their houses!

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by D_Emissary56

I am always ready to listen and learn. BTW, for us apolitical types, what are the PNAC and AEI?

They are the Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute, both neoconservative think-tanks and policy institutes.

Anyone who is anyone in the Bush administration was once a member. They incubated the neoconservative idealology throughout the Clinton era (which calls for the active pursuit of American strategic goals through military force, among other things) and the plans to invade Iraq. Some say they even "predicted" 9/11, as the articles I linked to will describe, although I personally doubt they did- although neoconservatives believe American society is weak and something like 9/11 would be desirable in that it would strengthen society.

There is no need, IMO, to look at shadowy groups for which no or little documentation exists as being the groups which control America. A look at the membership lists and policy statements of PNAC and AEI shows conclusively that America is now thoroughly in their control.

(If you would like to learn more, there is an excellent book by Cambridge University Press called "America Alone" out there which details the history of these groups and the neocons in general. "The Assasin's Gate" by George Packer is also pretty good, although I haven't finished reading it yet.)

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:51 PM
Some years ago while stumbling out of a Jamaican bar I fell over a pig lying in the street gutter. When I woke up the next morning the pig had snuggled up close to get warm and a golden macaw was roosting on my head. A local women standing over me made a comment about how you can tell a drunk by the company he keeps. Hearing this the pig got up and walked away. The macaw stayed. It was then I knew I had made a friend for life. Clinton as do many people tend to have very short term memories.
It gets me how people can just block out what they don't want to remember. Now by posting this link I am not saying that I agree with whats being said, but it proves my point.

[edit on 17-11-2005 by WHOFLUNGGUM]

[edit on 17-11-2005 by WHOFLUNGGUM]

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:37 PM
It would be easier to take Clinton's opinions seriously if he and his wife hadn't been cheerleaders for the war themselves.

Clinton may well have been a better President than Bush in purely practical terms, but he is hardly the guy to be quacking about US interventionism, having been responsible for a fair share himself.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I see he has started campaigning for his wife's presidential run already.
Hey Bill ... she's going to win anyways ... you don't have to tire
yourself with this campaigning.

The way they are running things these days, the Republicans are practically giving it away.

Nobody seems to have a problem with Clinton speaking out against the administration while he is overseas and we have troops in harms way. If that isn't shilling for Hilling, I don't know what is.

posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:00 PM
Lots of evenings I go for a walk down to the waterfront with my macaw Pedro perched on my shoulder. We'll sit and watch the people walk by. Occasionaly someone will approach us saying 'Ah he's so cute, can I pet him?' Pedro will look at me and say, 'Yep you can pet him!' He's not your everyday bird brain. When I'm setting at the bar over at the Rustly Pelican watching Norma, Pedro is watching 'FOX News!' He especially likes to squalk at Bill O'Reilly! My point being that it isn't hard to figure out between
the two of us who's the smartest. Kinda like Hillary and Bill. Like Pedro says,
'Wonder if he's paper trained yet?' Hillary our first female president in '08.
Even the crowd down at the Rusty Pelican, knows we had a female president during the whole Clinton term.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in