Too Bad For Bush
- Thread starter BuddyLee
- Start date
justin anemone
AKA BK
When Democrats quit saying that Gore was the REAL president and the election was stalling, the chances are good we'll drop this issue.
Come to think of it...Naaaaahhhhhh!
BuddyLee
Football addict
Originally posted by justin anemone
When Democrats quit saying that Gore was the REAL president and the election was stalling, the chances are good we'll drop this issue.
Come to think of it...Naaaaahhhhhh!
Im niether a Republican nor Democrat, I just hate how they never seem to get anything done with all their bashing of each other!! I dont think I should comment on the Gore/Bush election because the system is screwed up and outdated anyway
justin anemone
AKA BK
Originally posted by BuddyLee
Im niether a Republican nor Democrat, I just hate how they never seem to get anything done with all their bashing of each other!! I dont think I should comment on the Gore/Bush election because the system is screwed up and outdated anyway
Wise words, indeed...
I *don't* KNOW that. In fact, I seriously disagree with that.
There were several reasons given prior to the war as to why we were going in there. Just as there were the LAST time we went to Iraq. BOTH times, no one paid any attention to those stated reasons - each time, they came up with their own.
For example - and I've heard this one a million times - it keeps getting stated "why didn't we get Saddam the last time - why didn't we move into Baghdad and get him then?". And the answer came from Powell, and Schwarzkopf, and finally Bush Sr - the same answer - NOT one of the mission parameters.
Bush Sr. is credited with carefully building an international coalition supported by the United Nations, in the last war. He got cooperation from everyone (sort of - the French were against it, and grudgingly sent the DeGaulle, a carrier with NO PLANES on it). But in order to get everyone aboard, he had *conditions* placed on him - for example, NO Arab nation would cooperate if *Israel* was in the coalition. Every Arab nation similarly would pull out if Iraq's sovereignty was violated (read: government overthrown, Baghdad captured, Saddam taken out).
So the war boiled down to three things - liberate Kuwait, reduce the threat of Saddam's army (because he was in a position to either *re-take* Kuwait after everyone went home - and had been positioned along Saudi's border, to capture the defenseless Saudis) and destroy his ability to make war on his neighbors.
That's IT. Maybe we should NOT have agreed to those - but that's the way it was.
Now - this time around - we had the same nut job, who had used chemical and biologoical agents in the past, *making* them, in violation of the UN. Instead of yielding to the inspectors - a condition of the previous war - he threw them out. He dodged and lied to the inspectors, and re-built weapons they saw dismantled. He allowed terrorists to train in his country. He offered support to Palestinian terrorists. He HAD been trying to build nuclear weapons near the end of the first war, and there was somewhat credible intel that he was doing the same thing again. I really could go on and on.
Now, you have an insane tyrant like Hitler and Pol Pot issuing threats against the US. With the intel we had - it's reasonable to say, the world is fed up with you. Your time is over. So we took him out.
The world over agrees that he was an awful, awful tyrant. The Iraqis can barely contain themselves knowing he was gone. Even people who HATE Bush grudgingly agree, they're glad Saddam is gone.
But for reasons I can never figure - they're upset with the *reasons* he was removed - even though they were never the reasons given by the administration. Somehow, after putting up with this crazy man's crap for 12 years, the administration "rushed" to war to "find" WMD's. Well hell, why? It's not like he couldn't have just stopped and made them later. He HAD the ability to make them at his leisure, and he was too dangerous a world threat to be permitted to do what he willed with them. He wouldn't cooperate, so we made the decision for him. The world is a better place without him.
And this is a *BAD* thing? I'm never going to understand it.
justin anemone
AKA BK
I just keep thinking of the old adage: "No harm, no foul".
The bottom line is that the world is indeed better off without Saddam running Iraq, regardless of who thought who had what.
Since it all came out in the wash, who cares about motives?
The bottom line is that the world is indeed better off without Saddam running Iraq, regardless of who thought who had what.
Since it all came out in the wash, who cares about motives?
It’s obvious that you don’t get it, but neither did many Democrats, especially those serving in the Senate. The President is specifically tasked by the Constitution in the following phrase from Article II, Section 3, “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”; lying during a legal proceeding doesn’t quite cut it.
If Clinton had just simply said, “Yep, I did it.” Nothing would have been done, as then it would have truly been just about sex. He chose to perjure himself and the Senate let him get away with it.
justin anemone
AKA BK
On a side note, he also corrupted a generation. I remember having to sit down for a long talk with my then-teenaged son who, like his friends, thought oral sex wasn't really "sex".
BuddyLee
Football addict
SurfaceTension
New Member
Which issue? Each time someone counters your claim with substance you squirt out in another direction.
BuddyLee
Football addict
What are you talking about? I agree with you guys and gals about Clinton and how he looked like a fool!!! I just dont get why we dont see the mishaps in this president when they are clearly evident. He is covered with the American flag and his war. This is all that makes him great.
Excuse me? But what are you talking about? Clinton, besides looking foolish, broke the law. Big flaw on the part of that Chief Executive, wouldn't you say?
Congress crafted a law authorizing the President to handle the Iraq situation, which he is doing. He took on the attackers of 9/11 and still doing that as well. The only mishap that I am aware of is the pretzel deal and he seemed to have overcome that also. I don't know what you are seeing but this certainly isn't another Gerry Ford.
BuddyLee
Football addict
Ok I agree with you on Clinton looking like a fool and breaking the law, but that is ancient history now and we cannot be concerned with him. We now have George Bush and what I fear is people being duped into believing that this is our new kickass leader. For war this president kicks major butt I suppose. He atleast goes into these counties and kicks the tar out of these terrorist. But One problem I have with this is why did he give up on Osama and all the other leftover terrorist in Afghanistan? Why did he go into the oil fields of Iraq and seek the man that tried to blow up his daddy? Im sure he was killing 4 birds with one stone on this one
1. Capture Sadam for daddy 2. Turn the country into a democracy 3. Create the war for more political fortune on his behalf 4. Dispose of terrorist that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks.For me I wish we had two conventions! A democratic and a republican so that we could atleast get a new republican in
Gave up on UBL? Where in the world did you pull that from? We are still in Afghanistan, but it is a different situation over there then what was going on in Iraq. The hunt is ongoing and will be ongoing for however long it takes to catch that vermin, as it should. Look at the hole they found Saddam in, pretty tough to locate someone if they don’t want to be found. Now add mountainous region, a couple of borders and you can see this could be a difficult task. Heck, it took better then four years to get that guy in the Carolinas that did the Olympic bombing in Atlanta and he was here in our figurative backyard.Originally posted by BuddyLee
Ok I agree with you on Clinton looking like a fool and breaking the law, but that is ancient history now and we cannot be concerned with him. We now have George Bush and what I fear is people being duped into believing that this is our new kickass leader. For war this president kicks major butt I suppose. He atleast goes into these counties and kicks the tar out of these terrorist. But One problem I have with this is why did he give up on Osama and all the other leftover terrorist in Afghanistan? Why did he go into the oil fields of Iraq and seek the man that tried to blow up his daddy? Im sure he was killing 4 birds with one stone on this one
For me I wish we had two conventions! A democratic and a republican so that we could atleast get a new republican in
Why did we go into Iraq, have you been living under a rock for over 12 years? The violations that Saddam ruled by were what finally gave Congress the gumption to once again declare him a menace, but the second time they authorized the President to take the action necessary to bring him into compliance, now everyone is p!ssed that a President actually did what he was authorized to do. The war over oil is all BS, unless you are talking about how Russia, Germany, and France were illegally assisting Iraq in violation of UN Resolutions for oil.
Bush didn’t do it for his daddy, he didn’t do it solely to create a democracy in that region, I would never believe that he would place so many lives on the line to further his own gain, and what is wrong about disposing of these terrorists? You say that there was no involvement, I think there was, and Iraq is known for allowing terrorists to set up training camps within their borders so they might have really assisted (since Baghdad Airport had that aircraft shell used as a training tool for such activities).
SurfaceTension
New Member
Excellent point...I forgot about him.