|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 17, 2008 13:37:01 GMT -5
The Big Dog hit a grand slam.
Great post!
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 17, 2008 13:51:35 GMT -5
My point is that both Presidents lied. Clinton outright lied about sex while Bush misled us to take our country to war. Which is worse?
Surefire, he doesn't need a cheerleader.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 17, 2008 17:06:24 GMT -5
Smited for your outright lying....yet again.
The "Bush lied people died" mantra has been dispelled over and over and over. Bush went on the intelligence reports he had to work with.
BILL OUTRIGHT LIED HE KNEW HE GOT BLOWN HE KNEW FULL WELL.
And PLEASE DO NOT EVER FORGET....74 Days of High Altitude Bombing.....
"billy" clintons NATO-U. S. war against Yugoslavia was the gradual extension of targeting to civilian infrastructure and civilian facilities-therefore civilians who would be in houses, hospitals, schools, trains, factories, power stations, and broadcasting facilities. Two months after the war was over, the BBC "revealed" that the attack on Yugoslav television on April 23 was part of an escalation of NATO bombing whereby the target list was extended to non-military objectives; NATO was "taking off the gloves." According to Yugoslav authorities, 60 percent of NATO targets were civilian, including 33 hospitals and 344 schools, as well as 144 major industrial plants and a large petro-chemical plant whose bombing caused a pollution catastrophe. John Pilger noted that the list of civilian targets included "housing estates, hotels, libraries, youth centres, theatres, museums, churches and 14th century monasteries on the World Heritage list. Farms have been bombed and their crops set afire."
This NATO targeting was in open violation of the laws of war, although this was certainly neither publicized nor condemned in the mainstream media;
Had GWB okayed something like this you'd have been going nutso moreso than usual.
And let us not forget "billy" clinton's policy of sanctions on Iraq, supplemented by the maintenance of intense satellite surveillance and regular bombing attacks that have often resulted in civilian casualties. UNICEF reports that in 1999 more than 1 million Iraqi children under 5 were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and some 4,000-5,000 children were dying per month beyond normal death rates from the combination of malnutrition and disease.
Death from disease was greatly increased by the shortage of potable water and medicines, that has led to a 20-fold increase in malaria (among other ailments). This vicious sanctions system, causing a creeping extermination of a people, has already caused more than a million excess deaths, and it is claimed by John and Karl Mueller that Clinton's "sanctions of mass destruction" have caused "the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction [nuclear and chemical] throughout all history"
Totally innocent and no one EVER died in all this sh*t..unbelieveable huh??
Send in the unicorns and fairy dust...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2008 19:13:06 GMT -5
The Democrats held the Senate from 2001-2003, the first two years of the Bush administration. And even though the Republicans regained the majority in 2003 for both houses, it was razor thin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are right Big Dog, my error. Excuse me to both you and surefire for that one.  However, it does explain the deliberate fabrication of the WMD's that could not wait. I am not out to excuse the Democrats at all, but I simply will not accept the fact that Republicans are innocent in all of this mess. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 19:22:07 GMT -5
I am not out to excuse the Democrats at all, but I simply will not accept the fact that Republicans are innocent in all of this mess.And I have never said the Republicans were completely innocent. Some of them are indeed complicit in the Congressional actions of the 1980's and 1990's that set these wheels in motion and I freely adfmit that. However I will not see the abuses of key Democrats, in particular Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, swept under the rug. They were/are the architects. If you can show me anywhere that I have said Republicans are blameless, I'll stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 17, 2008 19:22:47 GMT -5
The Democrats held the Senate from 2001-2003, the first two years of the Bush administration. And even though the Republicans regained the majority in 2003 for both houses, it was razor thin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are right Big Dog, my error. Excuse me to both you and surefire for that one. However, it does explain the deliberate fabrication of the WMD's that could not wait. I am not out to excuse the Democrats at all, but I simply will not accept the fact that Republicans are innocent in all of this mess. Both parties IMO share in guilt. I'm not out to excuse or condemn either party. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 19:24:57 GMT -5
My point is that both Presidents lied. Clinton outright lied about sex while Bush misled us to take our country to war. Which is worse?
Surefire, he doesn't need a cheerleader. Let's put this into perspective..... ** Proven Fact... Bill Clinton deliberately lied during sworn testimony before a federal grand jury. ** Unproven Allegation... George Bush lied in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. One is proven before a court of law. The other is open to debate in the court of public opinion. Big difference. Now it seems to me Saunterelle that you and Mink like to commend each other for making what you think are good points or sound posts. Am I to understand that there are, like in Washington, two sets of rules for conservatives and progressives here as well? Just wondering. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2008 20:42:24 GMT -5
I am not out to excuse the Democrats at all, but I simply will not accept the fact that Republicans are innocent in all of this mess.And I have never said the Republicans were completely innocent. Some of them are indeed complicit in the Congressional actions of the 1980's and 1990's that set these wheels in motion and I freely adfmit that. However I will not see the abuses of key Democrats, in particular Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, swept under the rug. They were/are the architects. If you can show me anywhere that I have said Republicans are blameless, I'll stand corrected. Well, I must admit this is the first time in response to me, other than this well written post, that I have seen you holding the Republican party accountable, however.....it' is almost like you are letting them go with a slap on the wrists as if they were kindergarteners, by implying that Frank/Dodd are the architects. Although I hold my own responsible, I see Phil Graham's hands deep in this whole fiasco and at one point you have excused him as insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2008 20:45:45 GMT -5
My point is that both Presidents lied. Clinton outright lied about sex while Bush misled us to take our country to war. Which is worse?
Surefire, he doesn't need a cheerleader. Let's put this into perspective..... ** Proven Fact... Bill Clinton deliberately lied during sworn testimony before a federal grand jury. ** Unproven Allegation... George Bush lied in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. One is proven before a court of law. The other is open to debate in the court of public opinion. Big difference. Now it seems to me Saunterelle that you and Mink like to commend each other for making what you think are good points or sound posts. Am I to understand that there are, like in Washington, two sets of rules for conservatives and progressives here as well? Just wondering. This is a good question. Maybe you can ask Bush. The difference here with these two characters, is one was caught and the other hasn't been brought to justice .....yet. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 21:02:39 GMT -5
Well, I must admit this is the first time in response to me, other than this well written post, that I have seen you holding the Republican party accountable, however.....it' is almost like you are letting them go with a slap on the wrists as if they were kindergarteners, by implying that Frank/Dodd are the architects. But they were. Your posts have, largely, tried to point fingers at Republicans and in particular Bush. Actually it's Phil Gramm, former Senator from Texas. And what I was poo-poohing were the early assertions by liberal / progressive apologists that the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act of 1999, which was signed into law by President Clinton, was the raison d'etre for the recent meltdown. That assertion is completely off base and has been utterly debunked by no less an authority than..... President Clinton. Did Phil Gramm have some hand in helping move along the bad parts of the regulations that the Democrats pushed forward in the 1990's (again fully and freely admitted by President Clinton) and in that have something of a measure of responsibility? Perhaps he did or maybe he didn't. He was an influential and senior member of the Senate who sat on the Budget Committee for many years, and he chaired the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee from 1995-2000 so he would have been right in the thick of it as the laws and regulations passed during that time which did lead to the recent meltdown would have passed through his hands. After all, as I have demonstrated repeatedly across several threads, it's Washington and deals get done to move things along. That will need to be sorted out by analysts and historians moving forward and if his complicity and record can be established as contributory to the ultimate result, I'll be the first one to line up and kick him in the nuts. However, Phil Gramm also retired from the Senate in 2002, three years before the administration and some of his colleagues (including Senator McCain) brought forth S.190, which was stonewalled and killed in commitee by minority Democrats and which would have provided reforms to Fannie and Freddie which could have helped avert this mess. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 17, 2008 21:49:49 GMT -5
It appears we are no further to handling the truth than first intended.....sigh
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 17, 2008 23:57:39 GMT -5
It appears we are no further to handling the truth than first intended.....sigh As relates to what I originally started this thread postulating..... You are right... we aren't. |
|
