by Simon 242 Replies latest social current
Even though I was a JW during the whole Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, it seems to me that Republicans make a big deal over someone's PRIVATE sex life, while overlooking MISLEADING a nation into supporting invading a country that was NO threat to the USA, POSSIBLY lying, deliberately misleading. And now, to get the heat off their man, they go after someone's private life.
I think that kind of character trait is questionable at the very least.
Pat
*LOL* ThiChi...nice chop....I don't care if he slept w/an intern, but if he lied about it then I have some issues. Even that though doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good president. I don't know anyone who wouldn't lie about some aspect of their personal life to keep people out. Unfortunately for politicians the long arm of investigatory methods don't give them any slack.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
Bush didn't lie...Bush used the intelligence that Clinton used
I think this says it all.
There was no new intelligence. The intelligence hadn't given any reason to go to war for years and suddenly, when Bush got into office, it seems that it did. It was done for political reasons and nothing more. There are dead American GI's and people with no arms and legs because rich-boy-Bush who wouldn't serve himself wanted to boost his opinion ratings.
Its clear to me and many others that Bush was keen to go to war and was manouvering things to make it happen (remember it was HE who wanted the weapons inspectors out, not Saddam). This is not how it should be, war should be the last resort, not part of the plan.
I predict a landslide victory for Bush. He is one of the best Presidents the USA ever had. Of course nobody is perfect, but when you look at those liberal loonies, who have nothing better to do than nay-saying and bringing up non-relevant issues. The sad thing is that a lot of the biased press, newspapers like the Washington Post and news media organizations like CCN, NBC, ABC, CBS and MSNBC are all trampling on George W Bush, it's no wonder that people are confused what the real story is. At least when you watch Fox News, you get balanced and fair programming on political issues.
Just my thoughts.......otherwise have a splendid day!
Richie :*)
There are dead American GI's and people with no arms and legs because rich-boy-Bush who wouldn't serve himself wanted to boost his opinion ratings.
There are also hundreds of Innocent Iraqi CHILDREN delivered out of deplorable Iraqi prisons and home to their families because Americans and Brits made Saddam honor the cease-fire agreement he thumbed his nose at for 12 years. Along with those children and their families are HUNDREDS of thousands of people who now know the fate of their murdered loved ones by Saddam... all because American GI's as well as Brits who gave their lives.
I was around during the Vietnam War... it was my generation. It's easy for someone who didn't live then to make quick judgements of who "served" and who didn't. I had friends who died in Vietnam and some who went to Canada... still others got out of 'serving' by just having a high draft number or enrolling in college. To say Bush "wouldn't serve" is so ludicrous and obviously a statement of one who doesn't remember the era.
Nothing personal Simon, just facts.
One more thing....
Its clear to me and many others that Bush was keen to go to war and was manouvering things to make it happen (remember it was HE who wanted the weapons inspectors out, not Saddam). This is not how it should be, war should be the last resort, not part of the plan.
excuse me.... Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in for several years, and then when he did, he started playing games. Of course war should be the last resort, but remember this past action with Iraqi was a continuation of the 1991 War .... 12 years we let Saddam yank the U.N.s chain. Saddam made the choice, PERIOD.
Additionally, Bush wasn't alone in his opinion of Saddam bringing war upon himself.....
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Right on double edge! You see the liberal press would not give this information to the public at large. They swerve around and mislead the people into believing that everything Bush does is all bad but do not go to the facts. You just gave an example of just a few instances where the liberals under Clinton were already preparing for the inevitable - but who gets the blame? Of course Bush....and so it goes with everything....
Richie :*)
Six,
You're quite incorrect on many issues, most particularly the war in Iraq. Bush didn't lie, and the war was justified even without the WMD issue thrown in. I fought in the first one, and tried to go to the second one.
Simon,
There was indeed new intelligence...and the old intel too. So, if Bush lied, so did Clinton, and France, and Russia and Germany and and and
That was the point, when the US was arguing for war, nobody denied that Iraq had WMD. My concern is not if Iraq had WMD, but where did they go?
About the WMD: There are reliable reports that most if not all WMD may have been shipped to Syria - Saddam had enough time to hide these weapons to discredit Bush. In fact, intelligence made actual photographs showing columns of trucks which were headed towards the Syrian border just prior to the invasion by the US. Of course, it's impossible to prove that these trucks carried these dangerous weapons, but the question can be asked: why were these trucks headed toward Syria? The only way at the time to find out was to invade Syria as well, but that would have been too risky and the US had no mandate to invade Syria. Even if they go to Syria now, it is quite possible that these weapons may have been destroyed.
Look, if Libya had WMD (and Khaddafy confirmed this!), then why would it not be possible for Iraq to have had them. Iraq is a bigger country, more powerful and richer and....they had Saddam who was a terrible despot and when you compare Khaddafy to Saddam, then Khaddafy is a pussycat.
Richie :*)
