|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 17:02:26 GMT -5
Knock it off with saying that "Clinton's administration was all for removing Saddam." He was smart enough not to get us into that mess for whatever reason. Bush was the imbecile that went with his gut and was wrong. Shall I go out and dig up the documentation for you? Or are you capable of reading the truth and believing it? Not only did Clinton say in 1998 that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the entire Middle East and the stability of the region, he also said he must be removed from power. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 17:07:20 GMT -5
Yes, yes, yes Bush lied. His biggest lie, one for which most of us are guilty of is refered to as "Lies of Ommission." Just exactly what he knew and didn't tell us could be considered a lie. I also believe that President Bush, like most of the higher ranking politicians, believed that Saddam did in fact have WMD's and his decision to go into Iraq was a correct one. My problem with President Bush is not for going into Iraq but for screwing up the end-game once Saddam was removed. Only now, with Gen. Pertraeus in charge and adequate levels of troops are we now in a position to win this war. Why isn't this being shouted from the rooftops? Oooops, what did I say? We have a chance to now win this war? No, wait, we can't have the worst President in history actually doing something right and justifying the reasons for going into Iraq. President Bush must be vilified and discredited for the Democrats to retain power. If it got out that he did in fact win this war, what would it do for all of their hateful rhetoric towards him and this war? What would it do for them in the minds of Americans? Excellent post. And very astute. Yes, the problems began after we actually won the war. Bush has indeed made some mistakes, and every President does, without exception. The real problem is not that Presidents are human and make mistakes, the problem is the political machine that puts those mistakes under a microscope for political gain. Nothing that is occurring now, regarding the investigations of the Iraq war and what led up to it, is above board, it is all political, and done without the best interests of this nation at heart. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 5, 2008 17:13:37 GMT -5
mrroqout, it is a tasty little morsel indeed. It illustrates the stupidity of the Bush administration who went against their own knowledge that this war would turn into a quagmire. Cheney's point has been fully realized and it's time to leave before any more American lives are lost.
bolverk, even if that's true, Bush's actions speak louder than Clinton's words. Clinton was wise enough to keep us out of that mess. Bush has sunk the Republican party with his knee jerk reactions and they will go down in flames in November. America is tired of the Republican's bad decisions, mistakes, and bad policies.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 5, 2008 17:19:58 GMT -5
So again TODAY for YOU Cheney is infallable.
EVERY other day he is evil incarnate...BWaaahahahahahaahahahaaahaaaaa @ You
You are truly amazing.
And FYI it HAD NOTHING to do with "Clinton Being Wise"..well except that he was wise to the Political games so called progressives play. And knew better than to DO ANYTHING that could have been REMOTELY deemed questionable.
This is called being a PUSSY afraid of his own shadow and ESPECIALLY of crybabies like yourself..plain and simple. God forbid he upset whiney libs...
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 5, 2008 17:27:19 GMT -5
I don't hold Bush or Cheney in high esteem, you do. I'm giving the facts to you straight from a source YOU respect and trust.
I would much rather be a pussy and make a wise move than be a knee jerk reactionary hawk and make a mistake that costs thousands of people their lives. Republicans have proven to be the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 17:32:02 GMT -5
Your arguments are weak and you're grasping for straws here. Knock it off with saying that "Clinton's administration was all for removing Saddam." He was smart enough not to get us into that mess for whatever reason. Bush was the imbecile that went with his gut and was wrong. "Lastly, don't give me the run around about democrats relying on Bush for intelligence. Those people all have their own sources, and believed that Saddam was a threat, as was claimed by the Clinton Administration as far back as 1998. If they lack the intelligence to do their own homework on the subject, then it was they who failed you, not Bush. And that is a fact of life, they did not do their job if they believed only Bush." I'm not giving you the run around. The facts speak for themselves. The evidence is well documented. It's right there in black and white. You can look up the rest of Bush's lies too, and you'll find that most of them are totally valid. "But hey, you would rather every Iraqi man, woman and child suffered under the yoke of slavery, then risk a single American life to liberate them and bring them along into Democracy. " Watch the video of Cheney. In 1994 he himself says that it is not worth the loss of so many American lives to go into Iraq and create a quagmire. And there are much more pressing areas of the world if our goal is humanitarian aid. Iraqis were not "under the yoke of slavery" like people in the Congo and Darfur are today. This was never presented as our reason to go to war. I never said they were under the yoke of slavery, I said you would rather every man, woman and child suffer under the yoke of slavery, then risk a single American life to liberate them. Since you obviously can not see my backhanded insult, I will spell it out for you. You, and your party, would rather watch the people of the world suffer horrendous deaths, torture, disease and oppression or slavery then to lift a single finger or sacrifice a single life to help. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 5, 2008 17:42:05 GMT -5
The fact is Iraqis were not and were never going to be "suffering under the yoke of slavery."
"You, and your party, would rather watch the people of the world suffer horrendous deaths, torture, disease and oppression or slavery then to lift a single finger or sacrifice a single life to help."
How many American lives is it worth to you? And, by the way, the Republican party is not one of caring for the well being of humans around the world. One of the first things Bush did when he became President was to cut funding to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa through education and medical assistance. That still haunts me as one of the most cold hearted things he's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 18:21:29 GMT -5
bolverk, even if that's true, Bush's actions speak louder than Clinton's words. Clinton was wise enough to keep us out of that mess. Bush has sunk the Republican party with his knee jerk reactions and they will go down in flames in November. America is tired of the Republican's bad decisions, mistakes, and bad policies. Actually, Bush's actions do speak louder then Clinton's words, that is why Bush to this day has already enjoyed the highest approval rating of any President, and any point in their career. And, no, Clinton did not keep us out of the mess, you are ignoring history again. He just lobbed a few missiles and dropped some bombs when ever the Monica Lewinsky and White Water scandals raised their ugly heads. And then, he only sent in the F.B.I. to investigate after the U.S.S. Cole was bombed by terrorists, on my birthday, in 2000. Clinton Administration policies and actions are what caused 9/11, just short of 9 months after leaving office. So, basically, Clinton is directly responsible for both Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror because of his own actions and inactions when it counted the most. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 18:32:37 GMT -5
The fact is Iraqis were not and were never going to be "suffering under the yoke of slavery." Are you really that thick? I said, that your kind would tolerate everything being done to Iraqis, or any other country that requires our help. The reason I use slavery as an example, is because it is still the most shocking aspect of our history, and you would allow it also, rather then act. In other words, your party is willing to tolerate the greatest atrocities against humanity rather then loose a single American Warriors life to stop it. That is what I am saying. Now that I have spelled it out for you, do you finally get what I am saying? |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 5, 2008 18:32:58 GMT -5
You have OBVIOUSLY NEVER READ AN ENTIRE POST.
I DO NOT HOLD Bush or Cheney in "high regard", do I think they made some mistakes of course. But do I also think we are damn lucky GWB was in office on 9/11...sure do. I could not imagine what the old guru of global warming would have done..
Or maybe he would have just bombed civilian targets for 74 days straight from high altitude like his mentor did.............
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 5, 2008 18:33:23 GMT -5
You're obviously in denial. First of all, I can't believe you're going to use Bush's approval rating following 9/11 as evidence that he was well liked! The country was scared. They were turning to their President to protect them. Clinton, or Gore for that matter, would have enjoyed the same high rating. And Bush sure lost it quick! When America realized how incompetent he is it dropped to a low of 28%. 28%!
And blaming Clinton for 9/11 is foolish. He wasn't the one with a memo on his desk titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." that detailed how Osama bin Laden might use civilian airplanes to carry out terror attacks on U.S. soil. The blame rests squarely on the Bush administration. Maybe if he wasn't on vacation so often (Bush is on pace to have spent 499 days on vacation during his two terms, beating the previous record holder Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms) he would have paid more attention to the looming threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 5, 2008 18:34:12 GMT -5
I don't hold Bush or Cheney in high esteem, you do. I'm giving the facts to you straight from a source YOU respect and trust. I would much rather be a pussy and make a wise move than be a knee jerk reactionary hawk and make a mistake that costs thousands of people their lives. Republicans have proven to be the latter. So, in other words, you would rather this country be invaded, and all it's people be subjected to totalitarian government then to loss any lives in preventing it? |
|
