Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yet you fail to notice there are almost no posts from Bush-lite's "supporters" actually answering the question. I assume that's because they have nothing positive they can attribute to Bush other than the fact that he's not a Democrat. They really don't support Bush, they just know Democrats are evil because that's how mommy and daddy raised them.
i cannot speak for others who did not answer the question since i did, as for myself i used to be a democrat, as liberal as a person can be at that. except for i was an "old school liberal" liberalism was to me about you doing your thing, me doing mine and live and let live if i disagreed with something exercised my freedom of speech to let the world know but i did my best to not squash the rights of another person while doing it.
now it seems liberalism has changed, it is often times as extremist as those they oppose, quite willing to trample others rights in the name of exercising their own, and are very quick to make judgments while at the same time chiding other for being judgmental. i really dislike the democratic party right now,case in point they get a judge to make a ruling blatantly disregarding the law in the NJ in the senatorial election, citing "the people's right to have a choice" as justification, i agree people have a right to choose but just ignoring the law is a dangerous precedent, now in illinois they are playing a political game to keep GWB off the ballot unless concessions are made regarding fines being dismissed due to democratic candidate fundraising lawbreaking. it seems the only people the democrats care who get "to have a choice" are ones they know will vote democrat. and the only time the democrats care what the law says is when it works in thier favor.
i am not trying to change the subject of the thead, but demonstrating to you why i am no longer a democrat. this is just one reason among many.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For me, I don't hate the man. I just disagree with his priorities and his lifestyle and almost everything he has done as President. I have no respect for people whose only life accomplishments are capitalizing on their parent's connections and wealth. Most of all, I loathe dishonesty and hypocrisy in public officials, and have found Bush to be one of the worst politicians in decades. I find it especially offensive that he justifies his appallingly un-Christian behavior by claiming he is on a mission from God.
i view things differently, sure he is not a perfect person, but then again you or i are not either. i think his priorities are spot on.
i am hping you can view things from my perpective a moment.
as far as iraq goes, a forty acre chemical complex that has been hidden from the UN does not look good, it may not be a smoking gun but it is a gun, reason dictates things that are legitimate do not have to be hidden especially by a country supossedly out to prove what saddam had to. dismissing this and missiles that were tracked on radar exceding the 90km limit, plus mobile chemical labs because "they COULD have been used for legitimate purposes" is seriously oversimplistic. couple that with a long history of saddam stalling inspectors while trucks were loaded and left, THEN allowing them in while the trucks drive off is as telling as finding the stuff still there.
plus you and i both know as soon as a significant amount of WMD is found it really will not matter to most on the far left, they will simply claim bush planted it.
the simple fact is concerning iraq bush picked up right where clinton left off. clinton and the dems were just as convinced as he was by the same evidence, that is until the dems lost the senate in 2002, at which time hypocrites like daschle and pelosi did a 180 not because of evidence, but for political purposes. here we start with clinton.
here clinton describes saddam playing the same game with him as he later did with bush in the exact same way he had been doing it for a DECADE.
"
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment."~bill clinton adress to the nation 1998 after attacking iraq.
now zip ahead a 4 years bush is threating saddam with military action if he does not co-operate FULLY defined the EXACT same way clinton did...what happens? the same old thing he has been doing. stalling and obstructing.
this is VERY interesting too
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, "a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors." I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments.] And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.~bill clinton in address to the nation 1998
it seems iraq's actions "based existing UN resolutions" were fine for bill clinton to attack iraq...he came right out and said so.
and what conclusion did clinton reach?
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."~bill clinton in adress to the nation 1998
of course clinton lied, he did not help the iraqi opposition forces, he did not take the time to finish it, as per his MO he lobbed a few missiles over and called it a day, just like he did with al qeada.
Facebook
Twitter