OK... We disagree on that. I basically stated my reasons why I think
that Clinton may have. You are using what Clinton did not do
for eight years he was president as *proof* that he wouldn't have
taken action even if 9/11 happened when he *was* president.
Even though he is on record from 1998 as saying that such an action
me be necessary. (refer to bottom of post)
That still didn't have anything to do with the hypothetical.
And.
You still haven't answered whether or not you think Bush would have
gone into Iraq if 9/11 had never happened.
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 12:55 PM, Bethany wrote:
I wasn't. I simply said, that based on what he did do in 8 years (or rather what he didn't do) I don't foresee that he would have done anything different even if he had 9/11 happen on his watch.<image.tiff>
----- Original Message -----<image.tiff>
From: Tim Harder
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
You can't compare Clinton *not* having 9/11 happen on his watch....
To:
Bush *having* 9/11 happen on his watch.
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 11:29 AM, Bethany wrote:
How am I having anything both ways? Maybe I am misinterpreting what you were asking?
I just don't see Clinton handling anything the way Bush has.
he had 8 years and did nothing.
<image.tiff>
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Harder
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
Case Closed?
I thought you were a debater. So you are *sure* that if 9/11 never happened...
that Bush would have still invaded Iraq? I don't think he would have either.
The events of 9/11 were what led Bush to the place we are now.
You can't have it both ways.
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 08:58 AM, Bethany wrote:
well we will disagree. Clinton had 8 years to take care of saddam. He wasn't interested.
Case closed.
<image.tiff>
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Harder
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
Bethany,
I disagree. I think Clinton had the balls to go to war. I also think that the events after
9/11 would have been very similar. I think that secretly Clinton and the Democrats
are bitter that they didn't get to be in power after 9/11. They resent the nonpartisan
support an popularity that the country gave Bush post 9/11.
Clinton stated that Iraq was a threat, so it seems plausible to me that he would have
gone into Iraq as well. I think he may have had an easier time with the UN than
Bush did. If Clinton had gone into Iraq the Democrats would be all for it saying that
it was a just war and the Saddam was a tyrant and the civil rights violations alone
were enough to justify going in there.
You are right ... It wouldn't be exactly for *any* President to have history happen
the same way. I used the word "exactly" to try an generate a discussion on partisan
politics by equaling the playing field. Sorry you didn't want to play. <G>
On Monday, January 26, 2004, at 08:12 AM, Bethany wrote:
Tim, there are "hypotheticals" and then there are "no way in hells."
Clinton could/would have never handled Iraq or 9/11 the way Bush 43 has.
It just isn't even hypothetical.
;)
<image.tiff>
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Harder
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:02 AM
Subject: [Sndbox] Weapons of mass (Hypothetical)
I really don't see Clinton's quotes as haunting *him*... they haunt the Democratic Party.
What if this was the end of *Clinton's* first term and he had handled all of the events
after 9/11 exactly as Bush has. Yes exactly... What would the Republican candidates
be saying in there election speeches about Clinton's foreign policies?
So who actually was convinced that Saddam has/had weapons of mass destruction? Direct quotes can certainly come back to haunt you. Read on.....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
<image.tiff>
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
<image.tiff>
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
<image.tiff>
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
Tim Harder
_______________________________________________Tim Harder
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
