Let's impeach the president.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

oh, how easy it is to deflect the blame. is that also like saying if senior Bush would have finished what he started in Iraq, 3000 American soldiers would still be alive? and correct me if im wrong, but during Bill Clintons tenure, the republicans controlled congress. they could have done pretty much what they wanted. how is that , tit for tat?

SO sn. Bush was wrong for backing out, yet GW gets blasted for not backing out?????? Do dems even have a clue what they really want?

(I'm not deflecting the blame, I say Clinton sucked, and Bush had to clean up the mess...that's not deflection, that's Bush stepping up to the plate.)

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

SO sn. Bush was wrong for backing out, yet GW gets blasted for not backing out?????? Do dems even have a clue what they really want?

(I'm not deflecting the blame, I say Clinton sucked, and Bush had to clean up the mess...that's not deflection, that's Bush stepping up to the plate.)

taking us into Iraq, when the united states had no business being there. whose mess is he cleaning up? maybe his old mans. for some strange reason, this president really doesn't understand the meaning of politics. so now we have a mess in Iran. oh, what to do? who can we blame this on? i sure for some stupid reason, that this, and any other problem, is Bill Clinton's fault. because he surely is the root of all evil. and the republicans still haven't been able to accept the fact that even they are wrong every once in a while

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by dmek25

taking us into Iraq, when the united states had no business being there. whose mess is he cleaning up? maybe his old mans. for some strange reason, this president really doesn't understand the meaning of politics. so now we have a mess in Iran. oh, what to do? who can we blame this on? i sure for some stupid reason, that this, and any other problem, is Bill Clinton's fault. because he surely is the root of all evil. and the republicans still haven't been able to accept the fact that even they are wrong every once in a while

Ours because we put that evil dictating SOB in power! As a matter of fact Jimmy Carter (A Democrat) was the President in office at the time. So we have been trying to clean up his mess for three decades!

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

SO sn. Bush was wrong for backing out, yet GW gets blasted for not backing out?????? Do dems even have a clue what they really want?

(I'm not deflecting the blame, I say Clinton sucked, and Bush had to clean up the mess...that's not deflection, that's Bush stepping up to the plate.)

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

First of all you have no way of proving that they are liars. Well maybe Cheney, but I believe that Bush might have been mislead just as our Secretary of State was at the time. Once again you cannot change the past, but you can still impact the future. What good other than shutting up the American People does pulling out of Iraq right now provide? Absolutely none.

By the way, the War is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I want you to think about that for a couple of seconds.



Now, does it say anything about fighting terrorists in the name? No, it doesnt. The only thing that you can gather from the title is the liberation of Iraqi people. Liberating them from an Asshole that we gave the power to overthrow another asshole 28 years ago. It had to be done sooner or later.

One more thing. If Sadam wasn't hiding WMD's, then why was I over there during Clinton's term as well? Because of his refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors. No wait a minuite,thats right, the President was trying to take the country's mind off of the fact that he was getting BJ's from Monica!

There were and are WMD's. They may have been moved (maybe to another country, hmmm Iran is awfully suspecious), or they are still hidden, but they exist. What in the hell do you think that they launched into Israel in 91? Confetti!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

I love the "Bush lied" crowd. When did he lie? Did he get everyone else to lie too? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of decision makers both Rep and Dem agreed. There is a gigantic difference between being wrong and lying. Mistaking one for the other is a "disservice" to the truth. As long as the extremists keep yelling about Bush lying they won't get traction in this country. The American people don't care whether he lied or not. They care about how it is going and what the plan is from here. That is where the politcal traction lays and no one seems to want to take a ride on it.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I love the "Bush lied" crowd. When did he lie? Did he get everyone else to lie too? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of decision makers both Rep and Dem agreed. There is a gigantic difference between being wrong and lying. Mistaking one for the other is a "disservice" to the truth. As long as the extremists keep yelling about Bush lying they won't get traction in this country. The American people don't care whether he lied or not. They care about how it is going and what the plan is from here. That is where the politcal traction lays and no one seems to want to take a ride on it.

Actually, Obama never agreed

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Actually, Obama never agreed

Well we have something we can agree upon and if I'm correct he is the only person running for office that voted against the war.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well we have something we can agree upon and if I'm correct he is the only person running for office that voted against the war.

Well, he publicly spoke out against the war. At the time he was a state legislator and not a U.S. Senator, so he didn't actually have a vote. But he is recognized as the only candidate running that publicly denounced the war.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Well, he publicly spoke out against the war. At the time he was a state legislator and not a U.S. Senator, so he didn't actually have a vote. But he is recognized as the only candidate running that publicly denounced the war.

Speaking of Obama, and the title of this thread

Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable - USATODAY.com

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Actually, Obama never agreed

What is your point?

[jsarno]

Angry, I am very impressed with your posts...I wanted to reply to all of them, but I'd be writing forever, and take up all sorts of posts. You've done a great job.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

What is your point?

Just pointing out that not everybody was convinced we needed to invade.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Just pointing out that not everybody was convinced we needed to invade.

I didn't say that did I?