Which President will history treat kinder, Bush Jnr or Clinton?

[007]

Getting back to the original question...

Which President will history treat kinder, Bush Jnr or Clinton?

It puzzled me first of all why a canadian would give a damn, but I noticed in clinton's job history, there was no mention of the fact that he was the second President in the history of America to be impeached. Why was that?

I think big blue is just another liberal canadian Bush hater. Calling himself a moderate republican is a laugh.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Getting back to the original question...



It puzzled me first of all why a canadian would give a damn, but I noticed in clinton's job history, there was no mention of the fact that he was the second President in the history of America to be impeached. Why was that?

I think big blue is just another liberal canadian Bush hater. Calling himself a moderate republican is a laugh.

From my limited understanding of Canadian politics, the Republican Party hasn't been around since the 70's. I remember a vague reference to a Quebec based party that nominated a few people for PM before dissapearing. I do remember them being more liberal in their beliefs than the GOP. My calculations would put a Canadian moderate republican similar to our liberal democrat. Canadians, am I right, eh?

 

[Annie]

The fact that he cared deeply for Sally Hemings, yet saw her as not quite human show his hypocracy. He didn't feel the white race should be mixed with the black race, yet he bore offspring of this nature. Time and place has nothing to do with it. A horse is a horse and hypocracy is hypocracy.

Actually not true. He wrote plenty that shows is own state of dissonance over his stands. If you are going to study history seriously, one needs to have some ability to empathize with the folks one is studying. You have to judge them by the 'mores' they lived in, not yours. It's the hardest part of more recent history.That's where primary documents make all the difference.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dubbyuh has bought, and paid for, his place in hell. HIs legacy will be one of illegal and unjust war, destruction of America's reputation around the world, war profiteering, and the undermining of the American middle class.

 

[Said1]

From my limited understanding of Canadian politics, the Republican Party hasn't been around since the 70's. I remember a vague reference to a Quebec based party that nominated a few people for PM before dissapearing. I do remember them being more liberal in their beliefs than the GOP. My calculations would put a Canadian moderate republican similar to our liberal democrat. Canadians, am I right, eh?

The Parti Republic. This was more than likely a seperatist party of some sort, or anti-monarchy. Those running from Quebec only run to keep representation in the House of Commons, they'll never win because they don't have members running in other ridings through out Canada.

 

[Hobbit]

Dubbyuh has bought, and paid for, his place in hell. HIs legacy will be one of illegal and unjust war, destruction of America's reputation around the world, war profiteering, and the undermining of the American middle class.

Bully, turn off your bash bot and actually respond. I hate talking to a machine.

 

[Redhots]

He fails. Loser.

How is it unsimilar?

Two wars of agression where the stated reasons for war are not the real reasons and both are talked up as "humanitarian efforts" to gain the moral highground.

Do you even remember why we invaded Iraq? Bunk WMD and imminent threat claims (which wasn't the real reason to begin with), but thats not the line we're sold today... and it might not be the way history remembers it, depending on who writes the books.

 

[Annie]

How is it unsimilar?

Two wars of agression where the stated reasons for war are not the real reasons and both are talked up as "humanitarian efforts" to gain the moral highground.

Do you even remember why we invaded Iraq? Bunk WMD and imminent threat claims (which wasn't the real reason to begin with), but thats not the line we're sold today... and it might not be the way history remembers it, depending on who writes the books.

You're correct, history should remember the stated causes and information, not those either of us pick and choose:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio



8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.

President George W. Bush delivers remarks on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Monday night, Oct. 7, 2002. White House photo by Eric Draper. Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

President George W. Bush delivers remarks on Iraq at the Cincinnati Museum Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Monday night, Oct. 7, 2002. White House photo by Eric Draper. Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

 

[Annie]

2.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:31 P.M. EDT

 

[Rico]

Kathianne has the goods. Excellent job Kathianne.

Where will history rate Bill Clinton versus George W. Bush? I dunno depends on who is writing and the outcome of the WOT.
If Bill Clinton is portrayed as anything other than a pandering, finger in the political wind to determine next action, lying, philandering user it would be a lie.

Honestly I can't remember throughout history an American President so truly devoid of any real personal, or political, character than Bill Clinton. Billy loved himself and wanted everybody else to love him as well. The man simply had no real political weathervane other than current pollstering. His early attempts to follow his socialist wife were so disasterous that the Democrats lost their birthright, that being, control of both houses of Congress.

Now W has reacted to a frontal assault on the United States by extra-national groups with vigor. Call the man what you like but in the WOT he has been decisive to the point of the war in Iraq that may cost his party control of Congress.

Given a political science perspective I'd think that Clinton's loss of both houses of Congress, not temporarily, but on a decade long basis, and given the fact that the Dems had so controlled Congress for so long, would be labeled as a loser overall as President. Of course that, and being impeached.

It usually depends on the perspective of history within which a given writer is working, coupled with his/her own personal bias, that determines how history is written. If the WOT proves successful and the Iraq war results in a democracy therein, then Bush may get better press.
Remember this under Clinton the world was gearing down from WWII, and yes if you understand history and conflict the Cold War was an extension of the Second World War. Clinton never had to face a crisis such as 9/11. Clinton had no "great' decisions to make. In my view if the WOT proves successful, and Iraq spurs the Arab middle east to democracy, then there is no way George W. Bush goes down as anything other than a wartime President who made difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions, and was effective.

 

[Avatar4321]

Remember this under Clinton the world was gearing down from WWII, and yes if you understand history and conflict the Cold War was an extension of the Second World War. Clinton never had to face a crisis such as 9/11. Clinton had no "great' decisions to make. In my view if the WOT proves successful, and Iraq spurs the Arab middle east to democracy, then there is no way George W. Bush goes down as anything other than a wartime President who made difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions, and was effective.

I disagree. Clinton had numerous crisis.

The first attacks on the World Trade centers. Several Al Qaeda attacks on Americans.

He did nothing.

He could have settled the North Korean situation decisively. Instead he lets Jimmy Carter negotiate a "peace" deal where we pay them food and fuel and give them nuclear materials if they promise not to make nuclear weapons with the material we give them. What do you know they broke the deal. So rather than dealing with the North Koreans, he pushed North Korea off as a problem for future administrations and gave them the nuclear capability for them to cause us major problems.

He totally screwed up the action in Kosovo. (Which I cant help but notice none of the Bush haters have attributed to Clinton). Nearly started another world war with China because of his incompetence in Kosovo.

He totally mishandled the Sundan. The first sign of trouble, he told our soldiers to run away with their head between their legs.

No, to say Clinton never had an opportunity to face such a crisis is a bunch of bullcrap. Fact is had he done his job and shown the US strength in opposing evil in the world, 911 wouldnt have happened.

 

[sitarro]

How is it unsimilar?

Two wars of agression where the stated reasons for war are not the real reasons and both are talked up as "humanitarian efforts" to gain the moral highground.

Do you even remember why we invaded Iraq? Bunk WMD and imminent threat claims (which wasn't the real reason to begin with), but thats not the line we're sold today... and it might not be the way history remembers it, depending on who writes the books.

What is with you guys? Do you honestly believe the tripe that you post or is it really about getting your "team" back in control? If you have enough intelligence to start your computer, you should be smart enough to understand that anything coming out of a Democrat politician at this present time is a pile of steaming crap that is only thrown out to hopefully hook some idiots that don't have the mental capacity to care about what is actually happening around the world.

Redhots,
Give us a break, this isn't DU. You are trying to push that tired old crap and pretending it's something new. Kathianne kicked you ass by simply posting the actual speech by the President.

Jilian,
You are obviously quite young and have enough education to think you can argue history on this board. A word of warning, you don't have a chance going up against Kathianne on almost any subject but you just look silly arguing with her on history....next thing you'll try is to out research her. I think you will find the same is true when you attempt to speak of history with Gunny, he'll destroy you, but in a kind way(he is after all a Southern gentleman and respects women, no matter how misinformed).

Something I noticed that gave me a chucle was the way you used the standard dictionary definition of imperialism but when someone recites the dictionary definition of marriage it is somehow invalid, liberalism at it's best.

Big Blue,
You are a fraud and should just stick to playing with silly little useless remote control robot cars. Attempting to get into any meaningful discussions with you is a waste of time as was evident in the very first post I read from you. You showed from the very beginning of this thread that you are a brainwashed little dufuss and have nothing but other's opinions to try to add to the discussion. We have seen you guys plenty of times and you are as obvious as the nose on Bill Clintons face.

Bully,
What's the point, you are just wrong almost all of the time, does the term broken record mean anything anymore with the death of vinyl and the prevalence of compact disc? You are a skipping cd, how's that?

I find it amazing that the details of each Presidency are literally thrown out and you nonthinkers just want to rely on short, untrue, soundbites for the forming of your opinions.....sad, pathetic, and exactly what I expect from your "team".

Oh and Rico,
You obviously get it, welcome to the board.

 

[Dr Grump]

Something I noticed that gave me a chucle was the way you used the standard dictionary definition of imperialism but when someone recites the dictionary definition of marriage it is somehow invalid, liberalism at it's best.

This covers all definitions it seems.....

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).

 

[CrimsonWhite]

What is with you guys? Do you honestly believe the tripe that you post or is it really about getting your "team" back in control? If you have enough intelligence to start your computer, you should be smart enough to understand that anything coming out of a Democrat politician at this present time is a pile of steaming crap that is only thrown out to hopefully hook some idiots that don't have the mental capacity to care about what is actually happening around the world.

Redhots,
Give us a break, this isn't DU. You are trying to push that tired old crap and pretending it's something new. Kathianne kicked you ass by simply posting the actual speech by the President.

Jilian,
You are obviously quite young and have enough education to think you can argue history on this board. A word of warning, you don't have a chance going up against Kathianne on almost any subject but you just look silly arguing with her on history....next thing you'll try is to out research her. I think you will find the same is true when you attempt to speak of history with Gunny, he'll destroy you, but in a kind way(he is after all a Southern gentleman and respects women, no matter how misinformed).

Something I noticed that gave me a chucle was the way you used the standard dictionary definition of imperialism but when someone recites the dictionary definition of marriage it is somehow invalid, liberalism at it's best.

Big Blue,
You are a fraud and should just stick to playing with silly little useless remote control robot cars. Attempting to get into any meaningful discussions with you is a waste of time as was evident in the very first post I read from you. You showed from the very beginning of this thread that you are a brainwashed little dufuss and have nothing but other's opinions to try to add to the discussion. We have seen you guys plenty of times and you are as obvious as the nose on Bill Clintons face.

Bully,
What's the point, you are just wrong almost all of the time, does the term broken record mean anything anymore with the death of vinyl and the prevalence of compact disc? You are a skipping cd, how's that?

I find it amazing that the details of each Presidency are literally thrown out and you nonthinkers just want to rely on short, untrue, soundbites for the forming of your opinions.....sad, pathetic, and exactly what I expect from your "team".

Oh and Rico,
You obviously get it, welcome to the board.

So basically, any opinion that differs from yours is not welcome here? Does that go for me too?

 

[jillian]

What is with you guys? Do you honestly believe the tripe that you post or is it really about getting your "team" back in control? If you have enough intelligence to start your computer, you should be smart enough to understand that anything coming out of a Democrat politician at this present time is a pile of steaming crap that is only thrown out to hopefully hook some idiots that don't have the mental capacity to care about what is actually happening around the world.

Only someone who lives under a rock or who reads only Drudge can ignore the fact that Bush has an approval rating of 32% and in almost every race between a generic republican and a generic democrat right now, the polls are in favor of the dems. That's not to say that the Dems can't mess it up, but right-wing extremists don't have a lock on caring about what is happening in the world.

Jilian,
You are obviously quite young and have enough education to think you can argue history on this board. A word of warning, you don't have a chance going up against Kathianne on almost any subject but you just look silly arguing with her on history....next thing you'll try is to out research her.

I think you will find the same is true when you attempt to speak of history with Gunny, he'll destroy you, but in a kind way(he is after all a Southern gentleman and respects women, no matter how misinformed).

Funny...both Kathianne and Gunny have been very courteous to me and I've enjoyed their posts, whether I agree with them or they with me.

But I've got your measure based on your pointless comments to me and the others. You are one of those folk who think that only people who share your pov have a brain. I don't have a lot of use for people like that. Same as I have no use for people on the other extreme end like mshakur-types.

And by the way, not only am I not that young, I have more than enough education and life experience to argue with anyone on a topic that I'm well-versed in and enough smarts to say when I don't know something. But thanks for your er...observations.

I also don't think we were really talking about history except in the context of Lincoln. She figures because the South wasn't thrilled with him, that he can somehow be likened to Bush in terms of legacy. I disagree. Mostly, we were talking about how we think history will view your guy. I think he'll be viewed as an incompetent. Kathianne thinks he'll be viewed just fine. Time will tell which of us is right.

Something I noticed that gave me a chucle was the way you used the standard dictionary definition of imperialism but when someone recites the dictionary definition of marriage it is somehow invalid, liberalism at it's best.

The "standard" dictionary definition wasn't complete as I'm sure you've already noted from the complete one posted by Dr Grump. So yeah, if you're selective, then it's not a valid definition, no matter how "standard" you may think it is.

I find it amazing that the details of each Presidency are literally thrown out and you nonthinkers just want to rely on short, untrue, soundbites for the forming of your opinions.....sad, pathetic, and exactly what I expect from your "team".

And I find it amazing that even 32% of people still support this guy. But I don't go around calling people pathetic or anything else simply because they see the world differently from me.

Maybe you're the one who has it wrong?

 

[Redhots]

I don't see how the first one refutes anything. The Iraq war was sold as a matter of imminent threat to the United States. The talk of mushroom clouds are what pushed most people into supporting it, along with attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. The rest of it is just saying "He is a bad guy" and just being a "bad guy" has never really been enough for most Americans to support a war.

Remember all the stink Clinton's peace keeping missions caused?

One of the big things Bush ran on in 2000 was that he was NOT going to play world police like Clinton did.

The UN thing is funny since the UN didn't support the idea of a war with Iraq, but the argument is we went in because the UN had no other choice. We used the UN as justification for the War... we respected the UN sanctions, regulations, and their international authority so much we had to go against their will for their own good.

 

[Annie]

I don't see how the first one refutes anything. The Iraq war was sold as a matter of imminent threat to the United States. The talk of mushroom clouds are what pushed most people into supporting it, along with attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. The rest of it is just saying "He is a bad guy" and just being a "bad guy" has never really been enough for most Americans to support a war.

Remember all the stink Clinton's peace keeping missions caused?

One of the big things Bush ran on in 2000 was that he was NOT going to play world police like Clinton did.

The UN thing is funny since the UN didn't support the idea of a war with Iraq, but the argument is we went in because the UN had no other choice. We used the UN as justification for the War... we respected the UN sanctions, regulations, and their international authority so much we had to go against their will for their own good.

You are revisioning history, before it's been written. Cute, what are you? 15?

“There are none so blind as those, that will not see”

 

[Avatar4321]

Only someone who lives under a rock or who reads only Drudge can ignore the fact that Bush has an approval rating of 32% and in almost every race between a generic republican and a generic democrat right now, the polls are in favor of the dems. That's not to say that the Dems can't mess it up, but right-wing extremists don't have a lock on caring about what is happening in the world.

There are so many things wrong with this one paragraph that im not going to bother with the rest.

Who cares if Bush has approval rating of 32% and a generic democrat is favored in every poll? NEWSFLASH: President Bush isnt up for reelection. His approval rating could be 1% and it wouldnt matter. The only poll that matters is the one we ran in November of 2004 where President Bush kicked Senator Kerry's butt.

Second Newsflash: Generic Democrats aren't real. If you want to really guage how the President is doing, run him against a REAL Democrat. You will not be happy with the results. Not that it matters since President Bush isn't up for reelection.

Finally, Caring really doesnt matter. It doesn't matter how much Democrats can convince the people they care. (BTW one of the reason alot of people are fed up is because we can see politicians pretending to care). Results is what matter. Who will be the better leader. Id rather have someone who can be productive and cares less than someone who has nothing but emotion and no results.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how the first one refutes anything. The Iraq war was sold as a matter of imminent threat to the United States. The talk of mushroom clouds are what pushed most people into supporting it, along with attempts to link Iraq to 9/11. The rest of it is just saying "He is a bad guy" and just being a "bad guy" has never really been enough for most Americans to support a war.

Remember all the stink Clinton's peace keeping missions caused?

One of the big things Bush ran on in 2000 was that he was NOT going to play world police like Clinton did.

The UN thing is funny since the UN didn't support the idea of a war with Iraq, but the argument is we went in because the UN had no other choice. We used the UN as justification for the War... we respected the UN sanctions, regulations, and their international authority so much we had to go against their will for their own good.

Im not sure how quoting President Bush's pre-war statements that if we wait for the threat to become iminent its too late refutes anything either... oh wait it clearly does refute your position. Sorry.

Also, I cant help but notice how President Clinton's wars of agressions that did not involve any interest in American self defense are called "Peace keeping missions" and President Bush's wars to defend the United States are called Wars of Agression.

I also cant help but noticing that said "Peace keeping missions" were utter failures, while President Bush's "Wars of Agresssion" have been the exact opposite, and yet President Clinton is still praised as a great leader..

Also, I cant help but wonder why President Bush's statements in 2000 matter, when everything changed on September 11th, 2001.

 

[jillian]

There are so many things wrong with this one paragraph that im not going to bother with the rest.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Who cares if Bush has approval rating of 32% and a generic democrat is favored in every poll? NEWSFLASH: President Bush isnt up for reelection. His approval rating could be 1% and it wouldnt matter. The only poll that matters is the one we ran in November of 2004 where President Bush kicked Senator Kerry's butt.

Kicked his butt? 2% is not a butt-kicking. A second term president should REALLY have kicked butt. And I'd remind you that while Bush may have got out the vote more than any president, more people voted against him than ever before as well.

And no, he's not running again, but he's a lame duck with no coat strings either. That creates a problem for incumbant Republicans who now have to dissociate themselves from the person they've rubber-stamped since 2000.

Second Newsflash: Generic Democrats aren't real. If you want to really guage how the President is doing, run him against a REAL Democrat. You will not be happy with the results. Not that it matters since President Bush isn't up for reelection.

True. As I said, the Dems are still perfectly capable of messing it all up. But it does appear its the dems' to lose right now, rather than the other way around.

Finally, Caring really doesnt matter. It doesn't matter how much Democrats can convince the people they care. (BTW one of the reason alot of people are fed up is because we can see politicians pretending to care). Results is what matter. Who will be the better leader. Id rather have someone who can be productive and cares less than someone who has nothing but emotion and no results.

Actually, it depends on what you want government to do. And when you're the party out of power, there's not much to offer BUT emotion. From a purely realistic standpoint, how do you get ANY results when you can't move anything through Congress? Just sayin'....

BTW, please don't mistake my post to Sitarro as disrespectful to anyone with your pov. I just hate when people try to end discussion by hurling insults at anyone who disagrees with them.