bob777

he's calling me a moron
you won't change my point of view

STEVEJ

Clinton had a thriving economy, low unemployment, overwhemling popularity and a BJ, all things Bush wishes he could have (and probably needs)....but never will.

and here's another flip flop to put the war in focus

n 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war:
George W. Bush, 4/9/99:
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

And on the specific need for a timetable, here s what Bush said then and what he says now:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99:
"I think it s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
George W. Bush, 6/24/05:
"It doesn t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you re you re conceding too much to the enemy."

Jimbo, you're really pulling that right wing crap out of your arse in this thread, whew ,I don't know where to duck anymore!!!

justin

On the specific matter of counter terrorism policy and competence of the Clinton and Bush jnr. administrations on the subject I'd suggest reading Richard Clarke's book, he has a lot to say on the matter and is better able to judge than any of us on the issue. "Against All Enemies", highly recommended,

Justin

STEVEJ

In addition, his testimony at the 9/11 hearings was riveting, enough to get Condeleeza Rice to make an appearence, something the Bush administration fought hard against and then, (whats a good phrase here) flip flopped and sent her running to the hearing after Clarkes testimony. The Bush administration then tries to dismiss Clarke as a disgruntled employee because Bush knocked his position down from cabinet level answereing directly to the president to answering directly to Rice, who ignored his warnings and shielded them from the president. Funny how Clarke was summoned directly to the Oval Office right after the 9/11 attack and if I remember correctly he said Wolfkowitz was already there blaming Iraq for the attack.

justin

Clarke served both Republican and Democrat administrations and was a loyal servant of his country for many years, as well as being very highly regarded in the world of security and counter-terrorism, his comments cannot be brushed aside as disgruntled ranting. His book is very balanced and is in no way a polemic against GWB, and a lot of his observations and version of events is supported by other people who have spoke on the issues. Anybody who dismisses him lightly and refuses to consider Clarke's views is doing a great disservice to themselves and the cause of supporting policies to stop anything like 9/11 happening again, just my view,

Justin

N2272V

I'll have to absolutely disagree with you here. Clark's book is a bunch of second guessing whining. I have a bridge in Arizona I would like to sell anyone who really thinks 9-11 could have been prevented or that another 9-11 is not possible. I also find it amazing that we don't see Clark's whining for what it is, an effort to SELL books.

No matter what the second guesser's say or do, another 9-11 is entirely plausible and likely to occur. The sooner the Eurodorks and Canadorks figure this out, along with the Dumbocrats, the better off we will all be because then, and only then, will the focus be where it needs to be and that is in the Middle East. The only way to end this threat is to eliminate the breeeding grounds of these terrorists and their ilk. We can only do this by encouraging/supporting democracy and education in this part of the world.

Instead of second guessing and re-criminating the events leading up to 9-11, we should be supporting the President 100% in his efforts to take this war TO the terrorists. As long as there are people in the world willing to put politics before common sense, we are all at risk.

Carry on!

N2272V

Your perception of these events is laughable. Keep up the comedy.

DUH!

N2272V

More comedy from the looney tune. Cinton was HANDED an already growing economy unlike Bush who was handed a declining economy and 9-11 after 8 years of Clinton's malaise. Clinton's legacy was to increase taxes while attempting to GUT the military. The only GOOD thing that happened during Clinton's reign was that he gave us a Republican Majority in the House and Senate. If he didn't have his brain in his penis, he could have possibly done more to help capture scum like Osama and enforce UN resolutions. Unfortunately his penis and opinion polls were his TOP priorities.

I find the Liberals attempts to make more of Clinton's legacy fascinating, yet retarded. Carry on by all means, your comedy is quite entertaining.

I challenge you to publish the source for these statements. In addition, to take these statements out of context to make an argument for Iraq is ludicrous. Most people with HALF a brain know that you cannot give terrorists a timetable. Kosovo was an entirely DIFFERENT matter which, thanks to Clinton and the UN, still is unresolved to this day.

The only excrement I see here Steve is the bullshit that you keep spewing regarding things you know little about and your inscesant whining about events that have been put in motion which cannot now be reversed. You need a better source of info than Moveon.org dude.

With all your whining, I ask you now, what is YOUR solution to the events as they are TODAY? We are THERE. Bush was re-elected. Now what? Carry on!

justin

Have you read Clarke's book? His arguments are very persuasive and after some stone walling administration officials had to admit a lot of his claims on briefings on Al Queda, proposed action in Afghanistan etc. that were stalled and never taken too seriously. And the argument about it putting politics before common sense doesn't wash, if we want to stop terrorism we need a coherent, viable approach combining military/security action and also socio-economic and diplomatic action, and it seems reasonable to me that part of formulating such policies is looking at mistakes of the past. I also find it odd that the people who often accuse anybody of criticising the current President very often took the lead is attacking every foreign deployment and counter-terror policy of the Clinton regime, and maybe if Clinton hadn't wasted so much effort covering up his stupid lie about having a blow job and the subsequent witch hunts he'd have achieved more,

Justin

STEVEJ

I think I'll let this guy speak for me.......

.
Send In The Chickenhawks, Richard Wirtanen, Lt. Colonel, RET

I think it is time for Rummy and the rest of the chickenhawks to move into the green zone until the Iraq conflict ends. Then, we will see a time line and learn how quickly you can disengage from a conflict such as this. They can run their war from there, not here. Also, they can base FOX news there. Where else can you get a better understanding of what is going on but to be there.
(Edited out several paragraphs concerning Vietnam N/A to this thread)


The Republicans never got off Clintons case from the very first day he was sworn in (even their dirtiest senator from NY , sleaze D'Amato could'nt finish a successful witch hunt) and it continued long after he was out of office, Fox news was still whining about the Clinton pardons when 9/11 finally took the wind out of their sails. It still hasn,t ended, the republican sleaze machine has already started cranking out books about every possible democratic candidate that might decide to run in the next election. Its not about the best man winning, its about how much mud and bullsh*t you can sling to destroy that person, and I have to admit the republicans are far superior in that arena.

Criton

You're kidding here, right?

N2272V

I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions. Not surprised you are avoiding them though.

Carry on!

BHopper88

just curious how someone can really explain going into IRAQ...

ok ok I know he was evil blah blah blah etc etc...

but ok, why not go "INVADE" others... that were attributed to "Terror"
-Sudan
-Somalia
-North Korea
-Syria (hell this is more of a hot bed then IRAQ)
-Hell why dont we back Russia with their "problem"

Its just something about IRAQ that has Bush jr all wound up...

Yet it is interesting that we have more to gain from IRAQ being "DEMOCRATIC" then any other "Terror hot spot"

COULD THAT REASON BE OIL.... ME THINK SO....

OH AND I GET MY NEWS FROM THE DAILY SHOW.... and its funny it has more fair and balance stuff then anything from CNN or Foxnews... GO FIGURE that something on COMEDY CENTRAL gets more people in my age group to get their daily news...

Criton

I love it when people try to raise the issue of moral equivalence. Now, let me see if I have this right. We can't go into Iraq only because there are other regimes that are equally bad. Thus, to go after one, we have to go after all. Since the U.S. obviously doesn't have the resources to go after all, it should not go after any at all. Is this generally your position?

Also, war for oil? Geez, even some of the least informed "pundits" have gone beyond that. Exactly who is buying all of this Iraqi oil?

STEVEJ

Lets discuss something here, before you brought it up, I had never heard of Move On .org...I thought it was one of your favorite charities , but you always refer to them not concerned if I know what you are talking about, its just some official sounding reference to discredit anything I post in front of the other people reading these threads. how pathetic but understandable considering the source.

As for answering your question,( if one could be found after sifting thru all the bullsh*t and right wing rhetoric posted here) after Bush and all your other buddies have managed the completly screw everything up don't expect me to come up with the answer, we will just have to wait until the next election when some democrat that is smarter than me and a whole lot smarter than you gets into the White House.

JustPlaneCrazy

Will never happen

BHopper88

Im not saying that the reason was just for oil, but there are reasons why IRAQ uses its oil for "bait"... just what sadaam did for MANY MANY years with the UN... The main thing under commercial reasons, IRAQ having a democratic regime it means more of the oil can enter the market place thus in theory would supply some of the demand thats not apart of the OPEC cartel...

Like I was refering to, why was IRAQ so important to BUSH went really SUDAN was one of the places that OSAMA places where he ventured back and forth from... It would seem like that the world would have given more support if it didnt seem like it the whole thing going into IRAQ was for alterior motives... Even with SADAAM, if they didnt make it sound like it was all WMDs, it leads to well we went into IRAQ with soso intelligence, do we go into IRAN if they defy the UN, and what about N.Korea? KIM basicly just laughs at US about the UN resolutions... He starves his own people on some say a grander scale than sadaam, and he has nuclear weapons and even states he does...

As much as going into IRAQ is some what of a good thing, the pretenses on how we went about it was and brings up some questions... and the bad part is that BUSH isnt open about it, if he and say rumsfeld came out and didnt just say, we did it because of this and that, and really state the TRUTH. Be open with mistakes, take the heat, more people would respect that instead of all the "cover up" or not having anyone testify until there was pressure to... and then to start the war, talk about time tables, look back at how much they said it was going to cost to go into IRAQ... there was a plan to run over and conquer the IRAQI army but how can the "Great" US Military not think there was going to be an insurgency...

But thats just me... Bush's presidency does bring about some good things, but MY GAWD, some of the stuff he has brought about is just CRAZY...

STEVEJ

Save this post.

cpal_747

The problems in Iraq would most logically be deemed internal problems. Since when does the US step in and deal with nations internal problems? China had some problems with some crazy kids protesting in a square so they rolled the tanks in and dealt with the problem. Why didn't Uncle Sam step in there? In the Sudan over a quarter of a million people have been left homeless by the actions of their nutjob leader, does the US bother stepping in there?

Why was Iraq so important strategically (financially) to the US. They knew that the Al-Quaea terrorist network was not welcome their by the Hussein regime, yet they insist on calling this a war on terror!

__________________
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
- Ben Franklin

Criton

I agree with you 100%! We should have followed the models established by Europe and Canada. When Serbs, Muslims, Croats and Slovenes are butchering each other, we should sit back and do nothing even when its happens in our own back yard. When Hutus try to wipe out the Tutsis in Rwanda, lets sit back and do nothing because we can't go in everywhere. When Somali warlords starve their populations to generate additional profits, lets sit on our hands because we certainly can't do a damn thing about it.

CPAL, if the U.S. followed YOUR model and those of the Europeans, nothing every really would get done in your world. It's very convenient to establish your ridiculous moral equivalencies. It justifies your lack of action and attention to practically everything, doesn't it? If you can't solve all of the problems, then why solve any of them? Isn't that right?

BHopper88

but at the same time, we are allowed to pick and choose? Its either all or nothing in many ways... If Bush wants to be the "Global Leader" or "World Police" we have to do that, we cant just say, well screw the UN we are doing it our own way. Well if thats the case we cant just say well we will let the UN handle the problems in Sudan or where ever. As the "Strongest" nation in the world we have to be looked at a higher standard to the world, as much as hard as that is. And when Bush looks like some cowboy just seeking revenge for the disrespect that his daddy got from big bad sadaam and then turning his head to the other leaders that are doing the same or even worse in other parts..

If Bush wanted to stomp out terror hot spots, look at some of the poorest areas in Africa and the middle east... Poverty is the root to all terror. Hate is bred from those that have and those that have not.

But thats just my opinion

N2272V

Gawd the moron brigade never seems to GET it. Last time I looked China and the Sudanese did not invade TWO neighboring countries.

I know it seems convenient to distort the reasons of why we went into Iraq, but it was already posted AGAIN in this very thread as to why. Why is it that you CanaDorks want to keep pretending that there was no legal reason to go into Iraq? Because you're all a bunch of hypocritical idiots that's why!

Dismissed looney tune.