I miss Bill Clinton

[Louie]

Because I stand with the President in time of war? While you side with the defeatests is your problem - as well as being a defeatest liberal

go stand on the front lines with him during his time of war

 

[red states rule]

go stand on the front lines with him during his time of war

and there will be libs at the rear of the line holding their anti war signs

 

[red states rule]

no...because you fail to see his mistakes....because you fail to think for yourself.... because you fail to take the time to study the problem and the area and the groups involved.... because you take EVERYTHING the administration says at face value and marginalize to ZERO ANYTHING said by any democrat.

During the Clinton years - libs said it was patriotic to support the President

During the Bush years - libs say it is patriotic to impeach the President

 

[Louie]

and there will be libs at the rear of the line holding their anti war signs

at least we get to watch you get blown away!

 

[red states rule]

at least we get to watch you get blown away!

That would be the Dems with their interns in the back of the line

 

[Louie]

and the republicans who voted to cut off war funding for Bosnia were what exactly? Doing their patriotic duty? Or were they surrender monkeys too?

 

[red states rule]

and the republicans who voted to cut off war funding for Bosnia were what exactly? Doing their patriotic duty? Or were they surrender monkeys too?

What security threat did Bosnia pose to the US?

 

[Louie]

they cut and run on the military... they don't support the troops no?
oh wait, it's different because it's your side.

 

[maineman]

What security threat did Bosnia pose to the US?

do you believe that America should uphold its treaty obligations? yes or no?

alternative question:

what security threat did Iraq pose to the US? NO WMD's...NO connection to AQ.... NO connection to 9/11.

 

[hjmick]

do you believe that America should uphold its treaty obligations? yes or no?

Yes.

alternative question:

what security threat did Iraq pose to the US? NO WMD's...NO connection to AQ.... NO connection to 9/11.

Security threat? Hmmmm...he didn't like us. That's all I got for now.

Sadam encouraged suicide bombings and other terrorist acts by paying the families of suicide/homicide bombers up, what was it? $25,000 U.S.?

Sadam may not have had WMDs when we got there, but there is no doubt that he had them at one time, they are unaccounted for, and he did his level best to make the world believe he had them.

No connection to al Qaeda, you're right. But he did allow terrorists to live freely in Iraq.

No connection to 9/11, again, you're right. But I for one never thought there was a connection. Sooo...?

 

[maineman]

Yes.



Security threat? Hmmmm...he didn't like us. That's all I got for now.

Sadam encouraged suicide bombings and other terrorist acts by paying the families of suicide/homicide bombers up, what was it? $25,000 U.S.?

Sadam may not have had WMDs when we got there, but there is no doubt that he had them at one time, they are unaccounted for, and he did his level best to make the world believe he had them.

No connection to al Qaeda, you're right. But he did allow terrorists to live freely in Iraq.

No connection to 9/11, again, you're right. But I for one never thought there was a connection. Sooo...?

there are lots of different kinds of terrorists in the world...the kind that Saddam hung out with and provided support to were not the kind that attacked us. Palestinian nationalists have no desire to fly planes into US buildings.... wahabbist islamic extremists do. Saddam was supporting the former and was an enemy of the latter.

 

[hjmick]

there are lots of different kinds of terrorists in the world...the kind that Saddam hung out with and provided support to were not the kind that attacked us. Palestinian nationalists have no desire to fly planes into US buildings.... wahabbist islamic extremists do. Saddam was supporting the former and was an enemy of the latter.

But the ones he supported do have a tendency to attack at least one of our allies in the region, Israel. But you are very right about the different flavors of terrorists and Sadam's associations in that regard. Truthfully, I would have been much happier with going into Iraq if they had simply said, "Hey, Sadam is a bad guy, gassed his own people, invaded Kuwait, put down a revolt by essentially killing entire villages because we pulled our support of those who were leading the revolt, so now we're going to make him leave."



On a side note, the sad truth of the Palestinian situation is, among the Arab nations their plight is something of a cause célèbre. They don't really give two rips about them except as they relate to Israel and how they can further the Arab countries goals towards Israel. If they were that interested in the Palestinians situation, why don't they invite them to live in their countries? Why so much poverty among the Palestinians? Because, as long as they suffer there will be people who hate Israel and this is what most of Israel's neighbors want.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Yes.



Security threat? Hmmmm...he didn't like us. That's all I got for now.

Sadam encouraged suicide bombings and other terrorist acts by paying the families of suicide/homicide bombers up, what was it? $25,000 U.S.?

Sadam may not have had WMDs when we got there, but there is no doubt that he had them at one time, they are unaccounted for, and he did his level best to make the world believe he had them.

No connection to al Qaeda, you're right. But he did allow terrorists to live freely in Iraq.

No connection to 9/11, again, you're right. But I for one never thought there was a connection. Sooo...?

So you're justification for spending $2 trillion dollars, 3,000 American lives and God knows how many Iraqis is that he compensated the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. You must REALLY love Israel.

You know who else has unaccounted for WMDs? Russia. They've got lots of them. Even nukes. The best part is that even they don't know where half of them are. If you wanted a serious threat, it's loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Let's invade them, because, as Iraq clearly demonstrates, military intervention is the best way to account for these materials.

Can you name a single country that doesn't have terrorist somewhere within its borders? And was flushing them out really worth $2 trillion dollars?

As for your last objection, Vice President Cheney said in a speech in 2005 that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda," and the evidence was "overwhelming," yet George Tenant recently stated that there never was any credible evidence linking the two. Someone's lying.

 

[hjmick]

So you're justification for spending $2 trillion dollars, 3,000 American lives and God knows how many Iraqis is that he compensated the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. You must REALLY love Israel.

You know who else has unaccounted for WMDs? Russia. They've got lots of them. Even nukes. The best part is that even they don't know where half of them are. If you wanted a serious threat, it's loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Let's invade them, because, as Iraq clearly demonstrates, military intervention is the best way to account for these materials.

Can you name a single country that doesn't have terrorist somewhere within its borders? And was flushing them out really worth $2 trillion dollars?

As for your last objection, Vice President Cheney said in a speech in 2005 that Saddam Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda," and the evidence was "overwhelming," yet George Tenant recently stated that there never was any credible evidence linking the two. Someone's lying.

Dude, I'm not justifing anything, I don't have to, it wasn't my decision. I was simply answering a query in a post. As for Cheney, just because he said it, doesn't mean I believed it, did you believe it?

 

[maineman]

But the ones he supported does have a tendency to attack at least one of our allies in the region, Israel. But you are very right about the different flavors of terrorists and Sadam's associations in that regard. Truthfully, I would have been much happier with going into Iraq if they had simply said, "Hey, Sadam is a bad guy, gassed his own people, invaded Kuwait, put down a revolt by essentially killing entire villages because we pulled our support of those who were leading the revolt, so now we're going to make him leave."



On a side note, the sad truth of the Palestinian situation is, among the Arab nations their plight is something of a cause célèbre. They don't really give two rips about them except as they relate to Israel and how they can further the Arab countries goals towards Israel. If they were that interested in the Palestinians situation, why don't they invite them to live in their countries? Why so much poverty among the Palestinians? Because, as long as they suffer there will be people who hate Israel and this is what most of Israel's neighbors want.

every arab country supports the palestinian authority to some degree....and every arab nation supported the PLO to some degree before that. Saddam's support for palestinian nationalists was little different from all those other arab nations's support. And if we invade a sovereign nation with no ties to anyone who attacked us and use as our justification the fact that their leader is a bad guy, why stop at Iraq? Why not use that same justification to overthrow every tinhorn dictator on the planet? Why not use that justification to invade Cuba and Iran and North Korea and the Sudan and and and and?

I agree with your thought that arab nations use the plight of the palestinians to their political advantage and need them to remain downtrodden.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Dude, I'm not justifing anything, I don't have to, it wasn't my decision. I was simply answering a query in a post. As for Cheney, just because he said it, doesn't mean I believed it, did you believe it?

Do you believe the invasion was justified or not?

 

[hjmick]

every arab country supports the palestinian authority to some degree....and every arab nation supported the PLO to some degree before that. Saddam's support for palestinian nationalists was little different from all those other arab nations's support. And if we invade a sovereign nation with no ties to anyone who attacked us and use as our justification the fact that their leader is a bad guy, why stop at Iraq? Why not use that same justification to overthrow every tinhorn dictator on the planet? Why not use that justification to invade Cuba and Iran and North Korea and the Sudan and and and and?

I agree with your thought that arab nations use the plight of the palestinians to their political advantage and need them to remain downtrodden.

You're absolutely right, using the "he's a bad guy" justification is a dangerous road to travel and not one I am necessarily comfortable going down. All I was say is I would have been happier with that than I am with the lack of WMDs. At least when you go to get a bad guy and you come out with the bad guy, your stated objectives are met. Unlike the ethereal WMDs, at least you have something to show for it. In the big geopolitical picture, I do not advocate or encourage the use of the "he's a bad guy" reasoning.

 

[hjmick]

Do you believe the invasion was justified or not?

Based on what? What we know now? What we were told then?

Based on what we know now, no. Based on the information we were fed then, sans Cheney's attempt to link Sadam to al Qaeda, and based on Sadam's intransigence, yes. But do not confuse that "yes" with advocacy. I would just as soon not gone to war. Let the sanctions work. Continue to support anti-Sadam factions like the Kurds and wait.

 

[Gunny]

and the republicans who voted to cut off war funding for Bosnia were what exactly? Doing their patriotic duty? Or were they surrender monkeys too?

Link please. Republicans made no concerted effort to cut off funding in Bosnia while Clinton was President that I am aware.

If there were a few crackpots that did, it in no way compares to what is going on now where Dems are marching in lockstep just to screw over Bush.

And THAT is all it amounts to.

 

[Gunny]

Do you believe the invasion was justified or not?

The invasion of Iraq had plenty of justification. It just wasn't the correct strategic move, IMO.