30A Skunkape
Skunky
Did he show, and if so, are all of our women accounted for?
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Bill Clinton Comes To Destin
- Thread starter destinconcierge
- Start date
Miss Kitty
Meow
Did he show, and if so, are all of our women accounted for?
back skunkster!! I missed you.
Last edited:
30A Skunkape
Skunky
Did he show, and if so, are all of our women accounted for?
He's not suppose to show until this coming Monday.
Miss Kitty
Meow
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
With so much distraction from the Monica "bj" Lewinski thing, it seems that we as a nation, including the Democrats, forgot what Bill was up to when he was in office fighting off the Lewinski thing.
I am a person of peace, and while I don't agree that war is the answer of life, thinking about Clinton's speech from 1998 regarding Desert Fox, made me start thinking about the politics behind it all. (I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat, so don't start throwing labels like that on me.) If Bill (excuse me, Hillary) was so against Iraq back in 1998, I question why Hillary is anti-war now, especially if a "vote for Hil is a vote for Bill." What has changed in Iraq that made the Democrats turn against the war, which Bill was trying to fight back in 1988? I'll tell you my thoughts on that. I believe that the Democratic politicians (remember all of the ones who voted in favor of the war) have seen the potential to use the "failure" of the war in their favor by putting a political spin on it. The war is something that strikes us all on a personal emotional level, and the Democrats see this is a chance to say, "going to war was wrong." My question is, what did all of the Democrats in Clinton's cabinet know that the Democrats are keeping from us today? War has divided this country, but reading back through our recent history, it seems that both parties know that we should attack Iraq. Perhaps it is only politics which has divided this nation, not war itself.
Take a moment and read the part of the CNN story I posted below. It is the last part of the story, but follows the line of the entire story which can be found on the link.
Here is a reminder, compliments of CNN:
(full story)
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
[/FONT]
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
[/FONT]
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
I am a person of peace, and while I don't agree that war is the answer of life, thinking about Clinton's speech from 1998 regarding Desert Fox, made me start thinking about the politics behind it all. (I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat, so don't start throwing labels like that on me.) If Bill (excuse me, Hillary) was so against Iraq back in 1998, I question why Hillary is anti-war now, especially if a "vote for Hil is a vote for Bill." What has changed in Iraq that made the Democrats turn against the war, which Bill was trying to fight back in 1988? I'll tell you my thoughts on that. I believe that the Democratic politicians (remember all of the ones who voted in favor of the war) have seen the potential to use the "failure" of the war in their favor by putting a political spin on it. The war is something that strikes us all on a personal emotional level, and the Democrats see this is a chance to say, "going to war was wrong." My question is, what did all of the Democrats in Clinton's cabinet know that the Democrats are keeping from us today? War has divided this country, but reading back through our recent history, it seems that both parties know that we should attack Iraq. Perhaps it is only politics which has divided this nation, not war itself.
Take a moment and read the part of the CNN story I posted below. It is the last part of the story, but follows the line of the entire story which can be found on the link.
Here is a reminder, compliments of CNN:
(full story)
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
[/FONT]
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]•Timeline•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
[/FONT]
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Last edited:
hnooe
Beach Fanatic
I absolutely welcome Bill Clinton to Destin! And, hey, all you sanctimonious, hypocritical, Bubbas and Bubbettes..what are you all so "supremely" proud about for the last 7 year under W? List all of the wonderful achievements that W and his boss Cheney have done for our country and mankind? Let's just start the year 2000 all over again with Hill and Bill, OK.
P.S. Hillary swears--Good for her! And, if you believe "W" never swears, then keep telling your children the tooth fairy exist and that evolution is only a theory!`
P.S. Hillary swears--Good for her! And, if you believe "W" never swears, then keep telling your children the tooth fairy exist and that evolution is only a theory!`
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
hoonoone200, I don't think many people have been bragging about GW's accomplishments. Where did you get that idea? Bush is too deep in the war to gain popularity from the LEFT, and he is too far left, except for the war, to gain popularity from the GOP. If anyone likes GW, it is most likely due to their idea that he was the better of the very limited two choices.
seacliffes
Beach Lover
Here is a brief video that shows how the same cast of Democratic Party characters that are now against the war were all for taking Saddam out back then. This includes the carpet bagging Hillary. Now they are against it, how convenient!!!
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE[/nomedia]
Wonder what they will be for next year???
[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePb6H-j51xE[/nomedia]
Wonder what they will be for next year???
Last edited:
Smiling JOe
SoWal Expert
...and that was four years prior to them saying that Bush lied. Politricks is a bad game, and I wonder if the DEMs are risking our safety in order to be elected. I'm not saying they are, but it sure makes me think for myself.