Iraqi War - Change Presidents.. would it still be a "mess"?

[Crimson]

Keep EVERY other detail exactly the same as far as how the Iraqi war started, was executed, and continues.. but change the President to Clinton.. do you all believe the press and everyone in here would still be saying the things they are now?

Think about it, when do democrats EVER complain about spending money? Yet, it seems to be priority #1 for them now. What about the progress of the rebuilding? The press and the dems would be championing the fact that it took 10 years or more to rebuild Japan and Germany, and how its only taking Clinton months to get on that path.

The relatively small number of American troops dying would be written off as a neccessity to insure peace in the middle east, and Clinton would be hailed as a military mastermind who is bringing democracy to a country formerly ruled by a ruthless dictator.

Why aren't the democrats complaining how much money we spent on defending NATO each year? Why don't the democrats complain about how much we spend on supporting UN projects? Why didn't the democrats complain about money when Clinton was launching 10 cruise missiles a day into Iraq? Why weren't they complaining about what we spent in Somalia, Kosovo, etc?

Anyone complaining about how much 9/11 cost us to rebuild and provide more security at home? Nope.

How many democrats complained BEFORE we went into Iraqi? How many of them voted for it and are now against it? How many democrats said Bush should have did something about 9/11 before it happened, and how many are now complaining he is doing too much? How many democrats supported Clinton when he said WMD are in Iraq, but now have changed their mind?

How many democrats said character didn't matter.. how many now claim it does?

Why is this happening? One reason.. Pure politics. Democrats are obcessed with one thing, making sure GWB doesn't get re-elected.. and they will do ANYTHING in order to make sure that happens.. even if it means completely reversing what they previously said.. I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why is this happening? One reason.. Pure politics. Democrats are obcessed with one thing, making sure GWB doesn't get re-elected.. and they will do ANYTHING in order to make sure that happens.. even if it means completely reversing what they previously said.. I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.
-----------------
This is what you see because it is how you are. That's the law of man.

 

[Crimson]

Good to see you don't actually have any response.. It doesn't matter WHAT George Bush does, you will criticize him regardless.. lets just be honest about that, after all, its just "how you are"... and its the "law of man".

 

[sMiLeYz]

Why is this happening? One reason.. Pure politics. Democrats are obcessed with one thing, making sure GWB doesn't get re-elected.. and they will do ANYTHING in order to make sure that happens.. even if it means completely reversing what they previously said.. I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

Why does Clinton, almost 4 years out of office, have anything to do with this at all?

Why is it that Bush never accepts personal responsibility for anything? Why is it always Clinton's fault, or George Tenet, or the UN?

Why in gods name do you think Republicans would forgive Clinton for bring our country into a multibillion dollar war, thats cost us hundreds of American lives ; if they couldn't forgive Clinton for getting a blowjob!??!?!?!?

I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

Are you fvcking kidding me? Pull your head out of your ass. It is G W BUSH administration that made the lies and deceit sent our boys to die while us democrats oppossed the war. Imagine that!

It's fair to say, if anyone it's conservatives that wanted our boys to die, by supporting the war.... going by your sick twisted logic. Maybe you should stop blaming everything on democrats at take a good look at what your great leader has brought upon this country.

 

[ManSnake]

I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

Only a sick-minded person would think that way and I am sorry you do.

 

[Miramonti]

 

[her209]

Teehee, look what I found

Note teh names at the bottom.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Good to see you don't actually have any response.. It doesn't matter WHAT George Bush does, you will criticize him regardless.. lets just be honest about that, after all, its just "how you are"... and its the "law of man".

perhaps I should tell you that I didn't vote for Clinton. I didn't like his lack of sexual morality. I would not have supported his preemptive war in Iraq any more than I did Bush's. It's called principle.

 

[SuperTool]

No it would not be a mess. Someone needs to look at this war as an outsider and make the decisions that need to be made.
Bush has bet to much on this war to be objective. His administration is also in the pocket of the military industrial complex.
Also, Bush has ruined our relationships with our allies, and basically we need to clear out the air, and start rebuilding those bridges, and Bush is incapable of doing it.
If Clinton was president, the Republicans would be all over him saying he is wagging the dog.
It is not pure politics, as I am against what Clinton did in Kosovo, and for what Bush did in Afghanistan, as far as removing the Taliban is concerned. Iraq was a blast from the past, where instead of addressing the threat of terrorism of the 21st century, Bush went to refight a war of 20th century. It unnecessarily overcommitted the US military to nationbuilding at a time when it's needed fighting terrorism. They should be out there seeking out Wahabbi terrorist training camps, not being rent-a-cops for Haliburton. Instead of fighting terrorism, we are giving these terrorists another recruiting pool.
Bush has not kept his eye on the ball, and our security will suffer as a result.

 

[SuperTool]

Oh, and the reason you are bashing the Democrats is because you are trying to distract from failures of REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT,HOUSE,SENATE,USSC
Noone left to blame, buddy. Learn it, live it.

 

[sandorski]

It doesn't matter who it was who lied about starting a war, it is wrong.

 

[Corn]

Good to see you don't actually have any response..

Should have added "relevant" or "worthwhile" in there somewhere............

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Crimson
Keep EVERY other detail exactly the same as far as how the Iraqi war started, was executed, and continues.. but change the President to Clinton.. do you all believe the press and everyone in here would still be saying the things they are now?

Think about it, when do democrats EVER complain about spending money? Yet, it seems to be priority #1 for them now. What about the progress of the rebuilding? The press and the dems would be championing the fact that it took 10 years or more to rebuild Japan and Germany, and how its only taking Clinton months to get on that path.

The relatively small number of American troops dying would be written off as a neccessity to insure peace in the middle east, and Clinton would be hailed as a military mastermind who is bringing democracy to a country formerly ruled by a ruthless dictator.

Why aren't the democrats complaining how much money we spent on defending NATO each year? Why don't the democrats complain about how much we spend on supporting UN projects? Why didn't the democrats complain about money when Clinton was launching 10 cruise missiles a day into Iraq? Why weren't they complaining about what we spent in Somalia, Kosovo, etc?

Anyone complaining about how much 9/11 cost us to rebuild and provide more security at home? Nope.

How many democrats complained BEFORE we went into Iraqi? How many of them voted for it and are now against it? How many democrats said Bush should have did something about 9/11 before it happened, and how many are now complaining he is doing too much? How many democrats supported Clinton when he said WMD are in Iraq, but now have changed their mind?

How many democrats said character didn't matter.. how many now claim it does?

Why is this happening? One reason.. Pure politics. Democrats are obcessed with one thing, making sure GWB doesn't get re-elected.. and they will do ANYTHING in order to make sure that happens.. even if it means completely reversing what they previously said.. I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

The whole problem with the situation is because of the way this war was started and planed. Clinton would not have gone in Iraq unilaterally. Clinton would not have gone in Iraq without UN resolution and support. Clinton would have check his intelligence and analysis on how much it cost not only to invade but also to build Iraq. Clinton probably would not have invaded knowing the acurate cost for the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. Even if Clinton decided to invade, he would have come up with a more responsible fiscal policy to support the cost in Iraq. Like not giving tax cut to the richest 1~2% American that would have saved the 80~90 billion needed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Good to see you don't actually have any response..

Should have added "relevant" or "worthwhile" in there somewhere............

That's because that's how you feel about yourself and how you want me to feel about me. The relevance and worth of what I say can be known only to those who know it. The touchstone knows gold and the jeweler the real gem. A rat must reach the end of his maze before he's willing to die. So run run run.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Crimson
Keep EVERY other detail exactly the same as far as how the Iraqi war started, was executed, and continues.. but change the President to Clinton.. do you all believe the press and everyone in here would still be saying the things they are now?

Think about it, when do democrats EVER complain about spending money? Yet, it seems to be priority #1 for them now. What about the progress of the rebuilding? The press and the dems would be championing the fact that it took 10 years or more to rebuild Japan and Germany, and how its only taking Clinton months to get on that path.

The relatively small number of American troops dying would be written off as a neccessity to insure peace in the middle east, and Clinton would be hailed as a military mastermind who is bringing democracy to a country formerly ruled by a ruthless dictator.

Why aren't the democrats complaining how much money we spent on defending NATO each year? Why don't the democrats complain about how much we spend on supporting UN projects? Why didn't the democrats complain about money when Clinton was launching 10 cruise missiles a day into Iraq? Why weren't they complaining about what we spent in Somalia, Kosovo, etc?

Anyone complaining about how much 9/11 cost us to rebuild and provide more security at home? Nope.

How many democrats complained BEFORE we went into Iraqi? How many of them voted for it and are now against it? How many democrats said Bush should have did something about 9/11 before it happened, and how many are now complaining he is doing too much? How many democrats supported Clinton when he said WMD are in Iraq, but now have changed their mind?

How many democrats said character didn't matter.. how many now claim it does?

Why is this happening? One reason.. Pure politics. Democrats are obcessed with one thing, making sure GWB doesn't get re-elected.. and they will do ANYTHING in order to make sure that happens.. even if it means completely reversing what they previously said.. I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

The whole problem with the situation is because of the way this war was started and planed. Clinton would not have gone in Iraq unilaterally. Clinton would not have gone in Iraq without UN resolution and support. Clinton would have check his intelligence and analysis on how much it cost not only to invade but also to build Iraq. Clinton probably would not have invaded knowing the acurate cost for the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. Even if Clinton decided to invade, he would have come up with a more responsible fiscal policy to support the cost in Iraq. Like not giving tax cut to the richest 1~2% American that would have saved the 80~90 billion needed.

Did Bill Clinton have a UN resolution for Kosovo and Somalia? Did he have UNILATERAL support for those actions?

How was Bill Clinton's intelligence when he blew up the baby formula factory or whatever it turned out to be? Could the fact that Bush's intellgence be off be at all related to the fact that Bill slashed the CIA's budget while in office?

Fiscal responsibility and Bill Clinton.. hmm.. was national health care a fiscally responsbile thing to do? Bill Clinton's fiscally irresponsible plans were blocked by the Republicans.

Oh yeah.. the POOR DON'T PAY TAXES... I am so tired of explaining that to you people.. The fact that the rich get the most benefit from tax cuts are because they PAY the vast majority of taxes.. the liberal "tax cuts for the rich" thing is just getting tiring.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I had a rather lengthy response planned, but this is hardly worth the time.

Your premise is flawed, because in spite of all the stupid things Clinton did, he would not have dragged us into this quagmire.

Also, if someone acts on what turns out to be a lie, and that lie was given weight by the office of the President, where is it wrong to reverse one's position when it becomes painfully obvious they were mislead.

Try harder.

 

[Red Dawn]

Oh yeah.. the POOR DON'T PAY TAXES... I am so tired of explaining that to you people.. The fact that the rich get the most benefit from tax cuts are because they PAY the vast majority of taxes.. the liberal "tax cuts for the rich" thing is just getting tiring.

The reason for tax breaks is to stimulate the economy and to alleviate some of the financial burden felt by the majority of Americans. How does giving those who are not feeling the financial pinch a tax break help the Majority? How does it stimulate the economy? Do you believe the taxes they pay now are unfair? Wouldn't you mind having that problem? I know I would

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Crimson


Did Bill Clinton have a UN resolution for Kosovo and Somalia? Did he have UNILATERAL support for those actions?

How was Bill Clinton's intelligence when he blew up the baby formula factory or whatever it turned out to be? Could the fact that Bush's intellgence be off be at all related to the fact that Bill slashed the CIA's budget while in office?

Fiscal responsibility and Bill Clinton.. hmm.. was national health care a fiscally responsbile thing to do? Bill Clinton's fiscally irresponsible plans were blocked by the Republicans.

Oh yeah.. the POOR DON'T PAY TAXES... I am so tired of explaining that to you people.. The fact that the rich get the most benefit from tax cuts are because they PAY the vast majority of taxes.. the liberal "tax cuts for the rich" thing is just getting tiring.

Heh, who knows, if Bush was in the office during the 90's, Kosovo or Somalia may be what Iraq is to us today. The fact is, Clintion did not cause diplomatic dissaster with Kosovo and Somalia like Bush did with Iraq. We did not have to spend anything like Iraq in terms of lives, money and damaged international relationship with those two war. That tells you the difference between the ability of those two presidents and the people around them.

Fiscal responsibility-just compare the budget surplus/deficits between Clinton and Bush. Debate over.

And who cares if the rich is getting the most benefits from the tax cut. In time of huge budget deficits, it is that important to give money to the rich and add more burden to the treasury? And most likely in the expense of middle/lower income class because of the up coming benefit/government program cuts to reduce the spending? Is that a fair policy?

And you are the one complaining about democrates doing anything to make GWB look bad? Just look at yourself and see how you try to spin and argue in his favor no matter how bad he screw you as an American. Well, not unless you got a rich dady who is a big business partner of Bush regime.

 

[Corn]

That's because that's how you feel about yourself and how you want me to feel about me.

Thanks for the dimestore analysis Moonie. I think I got my money's worth. You may not have very much to say, but you think you say it very well.

Your relevence is diminished because your psycho-analytical theatrics continue to remain uncentered and beyond your own ability to attain:

In one thread you can't wait to scream "bigot" at so and so. Obviously you do so because that's how you feel about yourself and how you wanted him to feel about himself. I failed to remind you of that fact in that thread........but alas, I don't feel it my duty to give a psycho-analytical review of every post written by every braggart chump trying to feed his ego.

 

[Vajurewi]

Originally posted by: Crimson

The relatively small number of American troops dying would be written off as a neccessity to insure peace in the middle east, and

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

1. American troops would be WRITTEN OFF??? YOU must think you are talking about toilet paper and not about American lives and soldiers' families. When the cause is just, then the SACRIFICE of soldiers is appropriate. But where are the WMD and the Iraq links to Al-Queda that was the basis of this pre-emptive war? dont give the "Saddam was a monster he killed thousands" line - so why dont we depose Fidel Castro, the guy in Liberia etc. There is no rational justification for this war.

2. Republicans praising Bill Clinton?? when Bill Clinton tried to have bin laden's camps bombed the media screamed "Wag the Dog" references at him.

so tell me, if we can impeach a President for having oral sex at work (and come on, who among us wouldnt like a
little of that?) why cant we impeach one for falsely leading us into a war?
:disgust:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vajurewi

Originally posted by: Crimson

The relatively small number of American troops dying would be written off as a neccessity to insure peace in the middle east, and

If the situation was reversed, and Bill Clinton were still President, he would be praised by both democrats and republicans.. and the war in Iraq would be viewed as a resounding success. Thats just the truth.. spin it however you would like.

1. American troops would be WRITTEN OFF??? YOU must think you are talking about toilet paper and not about American lives and soldiers' families. When the cause is just, then the SACRIFICE of soldiers is appropriate. But where are the WMD and the Iraq links to Al-Queda that was the basis of this pre-emptive war? dont give the "Saddam was a monster he killed thousands" line - so why dont we depose Fidel Castro, the guy in Liberia etc. There is no rational justification for this war.

2. Republicans praising Bill Clinton?? when Bill Clinton tried to have bin laden's camps bombed the media screamed "Wag the Dog" references at him.

so tell me, if we can impeach a President for having oral sex at work (and come on, who among us wouldnt like a
little of that?) why cant we impeach one for falsely leading us into a war?
:disgust:

The response goes something like this: Clinton lied under Oath, Bush didn't! Pretty lame defence, but that gets posted quite often.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

That's because that's how you feel about yourself and how you want me to feel about me.

Thanks for the dimestore analysis Moonie. I think I got my money's worth. You may not have very much to say, but you think you say it very well.

Your relevence is diminished because your psycho-analytical theatrics continue to remain uncentered and beyond your own ability to attain:

In one thread you can't wait to scream "bigot" at so and so. Obviously you do so because that's how you feel about yourself and how you wanted him to feel about himself. I failed to remind you of that fact in that thread........but alas, I don't feel it my duty to give a psycho-analytical review of every post written by every braggart chump trying to feed his ego.

I only appear to be a braggart because you feel so inferior. Now we're up to 15 cents I should think.

 

[Tom]

"Fiscal responsibility and Bill Clinton.. hmm.. was national health care a fiscally responsbile thing to do? Bill Clinton's fiscally irresponsible plans were blocked by the Republicans.

Oh yeah.. the POOR DON'T PAY TAXES... I am so tired of explaining that to you people.. The fact that the rich get the most benefit from tax cuts are because they PAY the vast majority of taxes.. the liberal "tax cuts for the rich" thing is just getting tiring."


point one- National Health care would be fiscally responsible, and economically responsible as well as the humane thing to do. We could spend dramatically less on healthcare and take care of everyone at a higher level of care.

point two- Bush's tax cuts for wealthy. Bottom line, we couldn't afford them and they weren't needed. Bush used the greed factor to get elected and now we have an almost impossible fiscal situation.

It's also not true that the rich pay more taxes, as a percentage of their income, than middle class taxpayers. So on top of the fact we couldnt afford them, Bush's tax cuts are grossly unfair.

But the important issue is we cannot afford them, even if you think they are fair.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ManSnake

I honestly think most democrats would prefer that hundreds more Americans die in Iraqi if it solidifies the re-election effort.

Only a sick-minded person would think that way and I am sorry you do.

The Democratic politicians want the White House in '04. They cannot do much about the outcome in Iraq or the economy... and to hope anything is not going to cause anything.. My gramma always said.. "Jimmy... if you hope in one hand and poop in the other which will be filled first?" They won't say they hope this or that... but, I have a belief that given the things they do do... that folks in war, to many of them, are just statistics.. Not all but many..

 

[LunarRay]

Oh yeah.. the POOR DON'T PAY TAXES... I am so tired of explaining that to you people.. The fact that the rich get the most benefit from tax cuts are because they PAY the vast majority of taxes.. the liberal "tax cuts for the rich" thing is just getting tiring
*******************

Tax cuts used to stimulate the economy ought to be directed to where they can be used to stimulate. Giving anything to the rich defeats that purpose. If you wish to have a general tax reduction because we are taking in more than we spend is another proposition altogether.