2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Probably because those "reports" are actually an opinion piece in a small newspaper.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the libertarian party wants to be a viable alternative they need members of congress.
Emerging every four years to challenge for the presidency will never produce a viable third party.
And they've never been able to achieve the success that old Ron Paul was able to create back in their hay day.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

Because anonymously who would know?

Because of the bit in bold in my post

According to Schwerin, the campaign has “not received anywhere close to $20,000 in anonymous donations in total, [so] it is impossible that they are telling the truth.” Vocativ independently verified this through FEC filings.

At that time they had not received $20k in total anonymous contributions , let alone a single $20k donation..

So, yes they could have given some money anonymously as you say ,who'd know, but the didn't give $20k so that lie tends to severely weaken the likelihood of any of it being true..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

So that's your justification? She didn't step down. Earlier in the thread you implied she was directly responsible. She wasn't responsible in any way for drone strikes.



She laughed at Gaddafi dying, the only fact you've listed.

It's ok though. You hate her and are willing to pin every foreign policy mistake on her, that's fine.

Are you saying she did nothing as secretary of state?

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying she did nothing as secretary of state?

No. She did quite a lot. I'm saying you don't seem to understand what the Secretary of State is responsible for. You're blaming her for every foreign action of the US government. That's ridiculous.

Black Swan

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Effective 30 September 2016 the Donald J Trump Foundation (Donald Trump Foundation president) has 15 days to file all necessary reports, including several years of required audits, to the State of New York in compliance with its laws. "Failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports required under Article 7-A with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York."

Does this Friday order by the New York State Attorney General's Office remind anyone of Trump University, a "fake" university under New York state law founded by Donald J Trump in 2005 and failed 2010, and whereupon Donald Trump is now a defendant in both the states of New York and California for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" with first trial date scheduled for 28 November 2016?

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Third parties like to blame the Republicans and Democrats for not winning elections when the reality is that it's their own fault for electing joke candidates like Stein and Johnson. Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates in 1992 because he was actually somewhat credible and able to communicate effectively unlike Johnson. If not being included in the debates is the problem then why did Johnson poll so poorly after being included in a couple of debates during the 2012 primaries?

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Third parties like to blame the Republicans and Democrats for not winning elections when the reality is that it's their own fault for electing joke candidates like Stein and Johnson. Ross Perot managed to get included in the debates in 1992 because he was actually somewhat credible and able to communicate effectively unlike Johnson. If not being included in the debates is the problem then why did Johnson poll so poorly after being included in a couple of debates during the 2012 primaries?

Remind me again of the in-depth discussion that occurred on "the issues" during the past debate?

No doubt the performance of 3rd party candidates is entirely to do with their qualities, as opposed to a gross imbalance in available funds to allocate towards ads etc. Something that the billionaire Perot didn't have to worry about.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/27/us/the-1992-campaign-campaign-finance-perot-leads-in-40-million-tv-ad-blitz.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

So what was Colin Powell doing when the Iraq war and Afghanistan war started?

You say I am doing deflection, you are not even posting fact.

RobertKK wrote: »

Colin Powell, not Rice.

Robert, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly at this stage...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Condoleezza_Rice.htm

Rice was the only member of his war cabinet whom Bush directly asked for a recommendation of whether to go to war. “Should we do this?,” he had asked her a few weeks before.

“Yes,” she said. “Because it isn’t American credibility on the line, it is the credibility of everybody that this gangster can yet again beat the international system.” As important as credibility was, she said, “Credibility should never drive you to do something you shouldn’t do.” But this was much bigger, she advised, something that should be done. “To let this threat in this part of the world play volleyball with the international community this way will come back to haunt us someday. That is the reason to do it.”

Other than Rice, Bush said he didn’t need to ask the principal advisers whether they thought he should go to war. He knew what Cheney thought, & he decided not to ask Powell or Rumsfeld. “I could tell what they thought,” the president recalled. “I didn’t need to ask them their opinion about Saddam Hussein.

And to show I'm not in any way exaggerating when I say it has been pointed out to you repeatedly...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100560104&postcount=9283
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100560966&postcount=9287
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100576459&postcount=9402
--> In this post I even had to remind you, again, that it had already been pointed out to you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100579074&postcount=9439

Why do you insist on continuing to repeat things that you absolutely know for a fact are not the truth, as they have repeatedly been pointed out to you not to be so?

Quin_Dub

Considering Clinton and Trump I keep being reminded of the quote attributed to Churchill regarding Democracy..

To steal the quote and re-use.

"Hillary Clinton is the worst possible candidate for US President , except for all the others."

Winston Churchill - 1947 wrote:

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

PopePalpatine

To be fair to the third parties like the Greens & the Libertarians, it's pretty hard for them to beat the Dem/GOP duopoly in a first-past-the-post system.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

With very few exceptions, the dominant 2-party system of government in the United States has acted in its own party's self interests, and what (methinks) excludes many of the diverse interests of Americans today. Once again this reminds me of something said by one of the country's founders and 2nd president of the US John Adams, cautioning the American people about the evils of the 2-party system. And today we find many Americans claiming that they don't like either presidential candidate, and say they have to chose between the lesser of evils for the US presidency: Clinton or Trump.

John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Remind me again of the in-depth discussion that occurred on "the issues" during the past debate?

No doubt the performance of 3rd party candidates is entirely to do with their qualities, as opposed to a gross imbalance in available funds to allocate towards ads etc. Something that the billionaire Perot didn't have to worry about.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/27/us/the-1992-campaign-campaign-finance-perot-leads-in-40-million-tv-ad-blitz.html

The debate went as well as could be expected for two candidates who have not shared a stage in an election year that has received inundative coverage and divisive politic from all sides.

And I don't expect better at the second debate, which anticipate Trump will use to further drag up the Miss Universe subject. Whereas any other candidate would drop the issue, pivot, and move forward, Trump doesn't do this I suspect because he has nowhere to pivot to. He can't run an issues debate because he has no issues to defend. He has no policy to discuss, because "we're telling ISIS" ...how we will balance a budget? Deport illegals? Reform healthcare?

During the Primaries his literal argument against discussing policies was because he didn't want his opponents to copycat him. Hillary has spelled out her policies to a tee. Time to pony up or go home.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Robert, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly at this stage...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Condoleezza_Rice.htm


And to show I'm not in any way exaggerating when I say it has been pointed out to you repeatedly...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100560104&postcount=9283
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100560966&postcount=9287
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100576459&postcount=9402
--> In this post I even had to remind you, again, that it had already been pointed out to you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100579074&postcount=9439

Why do you insist on continuing to repeat things that you absolutely know for a fact are not the truth, as they have repeatedly been pointed out to you not to be so?

Have you not been reading that this is the role of the president when it comes to those defending Hillary Clinton?
Rice was not even Secretary of State then, Powell was busy in the UN with his fairy tales.

Double standards are accepted on this forum to defend Hillary Clinton.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Have you not been reading that this is the role of the president when it comes to those defending Hillary Clinton?
Rice was not even Secretary of State then, Powell was busy in the UN with his fairy tales.

Double standards are accepted on this forum to defend Hillary Clinton.

So you do accept that Condoleezza Rice was the single most responsible person for the Iraq War?

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The debate gave Clinton enough time to get under Trump's skin and demonstrate that he was unfit to be president. How would the debate have been improved by having another two candidates on stage that don't really have any significant understanding of the issues?

How much money did Trump spend on ads during the primary season? How much did Jeb Bush spend? The effect of ad buys is marginal at best. If your candidacy and message doesn't resonate then ad buys don't matter.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you vote for a third party in a swing state then you are voting for whoever wins the state. That's how a first-past-the-post voting system works.

And their inclusion in the debates had little to no effect on their polling numbers.

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Where have I heard that before

Slieve Gullion

Can someone please tell me when the next live debate is on?

Overheal

Slieve Gullion wrote: »

Can someone please tell me when the next live debate is on?

Tomorrow Evening is the VP debate

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree absolutely with you about the need for a third (and more!) party.

I just despair of america's ability to ever achieve it. They just dont seem to know how to deal with a third party.

These people popping up seemingly out of nowhere every four years to challenge for the Presidency can never be a serious alternative, they appeal to idealistic college kids who are voting for the first time and havent really figured out how the system works yet.

Billy86

Slieve Gullion wrote: »

Can someone please tell me when the next live debate is on?

VP debate tomorrow, I think the next Clinton/Trump one is Oct 9th, I'm assuming 2am Irish time as was the last one.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The population was 245 million or so back then with much different demographics. Not sure what conclusion you can draw from that.

Quin_Dub

The format of the next debate will be interesting , it's a "town-hall" format so the questions will largely come from the audience who are selected by the Gallup polling company from undecided voters..

So it's likely both Candidates will get fairly thorny direct questions , what will be interesting to see is which candidate manages those questions better..

Overheal

Town Halls are always subject to conspiracy theories about how informed the candidates are of the questions ahead of times.

Frankly I'm just interested in hearing Trump cobble together a coherent answer to any given question where he doesn't side-track himself with his own "greatness"

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

With very few exceptions, the dominant 2-party system of government in the United States has acted in its own party's self interests, and what (methinks) excludes many of the diverse interests of Americans today. Once again this reminds me of something said by one of the country's founders and 2nd president of the US John Adams, cautioning the American people about the evils of the 2-party system. And today we find many Americans claiming that they don't like either presidential candidate, and say they have to chose between the lesser of evils for the US presidency: Clinton or Trump.

John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

In theory many Americans like the idea of a third party, but very few are ever willing to vote for a third party candidate. With probably the two most flawed and detested candidates running for president in our history, this more than any other election, should bring about the rise of a third party. But it hasn't. This election shows us that we’ll never escape the two-party system, methinks.

I like this quote better...
“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” – John Adams

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So you do accept that Condoleezza Rice was the single most responsible person for the Iraq War?

No, the plan was first drawn up under the Clinton administration.

1998
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

Defense Secretary William Cohen, in an interview with CNN's Judy Woodruff, said the goal of any military strike would be to "degrade" Hussein's capability of producing weapons of mass destruction. "It is not our goal to remove Saddam Hussein," Cohen said. He also said any military action would involve air strikes and that the United States has no plans to introduce ground troops into Iraq.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright personally briefed Clinton and his national security team at the White House after completing a six-day tour of European and Middle Eastern capitals to drum up support for possible military action.
Clinton said he was "encouraged" by the fact that Albright found a "strong consensus" in support of the U.S. position that Iraqi must give unconditional access to U.N. weapons inspectors.

Bill Clinton 1998
http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/index2.html

Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.
The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And when I say to him, you have used weapons of mass destruction before.
We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.
(APPLAUSE)
Last year the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention to protect our soldiers and citizens from poison gas. Now we must act to prevent the use of disease as a weapon of war and terror. The Biological Weapons Convention has been in effect for 23 years now. The rules are good, but the enforcement is weak.
We must strengthen it with a new international inspection system to detect and deter cheating.
In the months ahead, I will pursue our security strategy with old allies in Asia and Europe and new partners from Africa to India and Pakistan, from South America to China.
And from Belfast to Korea to the Middle East, America will continue to stand with those who stand for peace.

Joe Biden 1998 talking about Saddam Hussein
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-02-12/pdf/CREC-1998-02-12-pt1-PgS708.pdf#page=5

["Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century." /QUOTE]

Democrat senator Tom Daschle
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1998-02-12/pdf/CREC-1998-02-12-pt1-PgS708.pdf#page=3

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."

1998
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others to Bill Clinton
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/senate_letter_10-09-98.pdf

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Democrat senator Bob Graham and others 2001
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/ford_letter_to_bush_12-5-2001.pdf

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Democrat senator Robert Byrd 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20080615163330/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060412-8.html

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

I will finish with what Hillary Clinton said in 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20080723141509/http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. Andit is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.

There, It was US policy since 1998 for regime change in Iraq, as stated by Hillary Clinton.
But most people think it was Bush and co who decided this.

Billy86

Nope. Once again... very simple stuff here Robert. There is no denying it, no matter how hard you try.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Condoleezza_Rice.htm

Rice was the only member of his war cabinet whom Bush directly asked for a recommendation of whether to go to war. “Should we do this?,” he had asked her a few weeks before.

“Yes,” she said. “Because it isn’t American credibility on the line, it is the credibility of everybody that this gangster can yet again beat the international system.” As important as credibility was, she said, “Credibility should never drive you to do something you shouldn’t do.” But this was much bigger, she advised, something that should be done. “To let this threat in this part of the world play volleyball with the international community this way will come back to haunt us someday. That is the reason to do it.”

Other than Rice, Bush said he didn’t need to ask the principal advisers whether they thought he should go to war. He knew what Cheney thought, & he decided not to ask Powell or Rumsfeld. “I could tell what they thought,” the president recalled. “I didn’t need to ask them their opinion about Saddam Hussein.

What happened to is being Colin Powell, like you were claiming only a few hours ago by the way?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope. Once again... very simple stuff here Robert. There is no denying it, no matter how hard you try.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Condoleezza_Rice.htm

So Hillary Clinton lied in the senate when she said it was US policy for regime change since 1998 and that the options for regime change started then?

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

In theory many Americans like the idea of a third party, but very few are ever willing to vote for a third party candidate. With probably the two most flawed and detested candidates running for president in our history, this more than any other election, should bring about the rise of a third party. But it hasn't. This election shows us that we’ll never escape the two-party system, methinks.

I like this quote better...
“There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt.” – John Adams

To be honest the entire Electoral college system seems to drive apathy for voters..

I mean why bother voting as a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California for example when your vote effectively counts for nothing?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Nope. Once again... very simple stuff here Robert. There is no denying it, no matter how hard you try.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Plan_of_Attack_Condoleezza_Rice.htm


What happened to is being Colin Powell, like you were claiming only a few hours ago by the way?

He told the lies to the UN, but I did more research and it was under the Clinton's that regime change became US policy.
Irish people were too stupid back then waving minature American flags for the Clintons when they were plotting the biggest disaster so far of this millenium.

I think a lot of Irish people are stupid, they believe the spin about Democrats being somehow good, and Republicans being somehow bad.
They are near the same in foreign policy which seems to be controlled by the Pentagon.

gosplan

Trumps problems and the problems for anyone on here arguing for a Trump presidency is that he's continually showing himself to be far far worse at all the things he's attacking Hillary and the past administration for.

Crooked, big business, incompetent, secretive ... whatever.

Stones thrown at Clinton along these lines are rediculous given exactly what we're finding out about Trump.

It really sounds stupid at this stage and anyone continuing along these lines is a troll or an idiot.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

So Hillary Clinton lied in the senate when she said it was US policy for regime change since 1998 and that the options for regime change started then?

Please stop playing dumb on this. Do you know what happened in January, 2001?

Oh and by the way, go and point out to us all in your walls of text where they said they were going to invade Iraq. All you have done is put in bold where they said they would look to support other leaders. Not the same thing, and you know it.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Please stop playing dumb on this. Do you know what happened in January, 2001?

Oh and by the way, go and point out to us all in your walls of text where they said they were going to invade Iraq. All you have done is put in bold where they said they would look to support other leaders. Not the same thing, and you know it.

I am not playing dumb, Hillary Clinton said after 9/11 that regime change in Iraq was US foreign policy since 1998, and that options for it to happen started then.
This is what Hillary Clinton said in 2002: In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change,

Do you think by 2002 that they saw it was not happening?
She said options, not an option.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not playing dumb, Hillary Clinton said after 9/11 that regime change in Iraq was US foreign policy since 1998, and that options for it to happen started then.
This is what Hillary Clinton said in 2002: In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change,

Do you think by 2002 that they saw it was not happening?
She said options, not an option.

Come on now Robert, if you keep quoting half sentences to fit your needs people will begin to think you're beig less than honest. Here is the full sentence:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

Nowhere there does it mention invasion or war. And in 2002, what was Clinton's job again?

In other words, nope try again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Come on now Robert, if you keep quoting half sentences to fit your needs people will begin to think you're beig less than honest. Here is the full sentence:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In other words, nope try again

Including....

That means other options too.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not playing dumb, Hillary Clinton said after 9/11 that regime change in Iraq was US foreign policy since 1998, and that options for it to happen started then.
This is what Hillary Clinton said in 2002: In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change,

Do you think by 2002 that they saw it was not happening?
She said options, not an option.

Robert your hatred of HRC in actually quite outlandish , you need to step back a bit .

She has only held an executive office position for 4 years and yet you saddle her with responsibility for all that is worst in the USA .

What is your opinion of Bill Clinton ?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Including....

That means other options too.

So you concede it doesn't say war anywhere and the decision was not made to go to war with Iraq until Rice and Bush did so in their meeting together. Good. That's what I've been trying to tell you, over and over, for months on end.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Robert your hatred of HRC in actually quite outlandish , you need to step back a bit .

She has only held an executive office position for 4 years and yet you saddle her with responsibility for all that is worst in the USA .

What is your opinion of Bill Clinton ?

You are reading that all wrong.
I am not blaming Hillary for that, I am saying she said regime and the options for regime change in Iraq became US foreign policy under the Clinton administration.

If you disagree with that, then you are saying Hillary is lying.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So you concede it doesn't say war anywhere and the decision was not made to go to war with Iraq until Rice and Bush did so in their meeting together. Good. That's what I've been trying to tell you, over and over, for months on end.

If i gave you €100 including a €50 note, does that mean you only get €50?

I am saying it was policy since the Clinton administration and it was during the Bush administration that the policy was carried out, as Hillary said it became US foreign policy back in 1998.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

If i gave you €100 including a €50 note, does that mean you only get €50?

Does it mean you gave me the rest in 5c coins?

Now go ahead and remind me what Hillary Clinton's job was in 2002.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Robert your hatred of HRC in actually quite outlandish , you need to step back a bit .

She has only held an executive office position for 4 years and yet you saddle her with responsibility for all that is worst in the USA .

What is your opinion of Bill Clinton ?

Sorry, forgot to answer about Bill.
Too busy with his sexcapades, fighting scandal, the WTC was attacked during his presidency, the USS Cole, the American embassies in Africa and he fired a few cruise missiles at then which did nothing to stop the rise of Al Qaeda.
He had the chance to take out Bin Laden but didn't.

Helped with the Irish peace process.
A tech bubble built up during his presidency.
Like the Bush administration, pedaled the lies about Saddam and WMD.
Started the path to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry, forgot to answer about Bill.
Too busy with his sexcapades, fighting scandal, the WTC was attacked during his presidency, the USS Cole, the American embassies in Africa and he fired a few cruise missiles at then which did nothing to stop the rise of Al Qaeda.
He had the chance to take out Bin Laden but didn't.

Helped with the Irish peace process.
A tech bubble built up during his presidency.
Like the Bush administration, pedaled the lies about Saddam and WMD.
Started the path to the disastrous invasion of Iraq.

Is he better or worse than Hilary do you think ?

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Does it mean you gave me the rest in 5c coins?

Now go ahead and remind me what Hillary Clinton's job was in 2002.

As Hillary said, 'examine options to effect such a change, including...'.
So it could be 5c coins, €10 notes...

She was a senator and on the various committees like the budget committee, special committee for the aging, committee on security and co-operation in Europe.
Strongly supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and voted for them. If there had been a vote against then Bush would not have been able to continue the Clinton administration policy on Iraq which was for regime change.

I bet Tony Blair was telling her that Iraq could attack the UK in 45 minutes.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It seems to be more an anti-Trump endorsement than pro Libertarian.

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Is he better or worse than Hilary do you think ?

Hillary will be far worse and given Bill was not great, that is not good.
The US have the most awful options that I can ever remember them having.
I don't think either of the two main candidates are fit to be president.