War

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin@Sep 19 2004, 09:18 PM

If the picture isn't clear or there is doubt about the quality of the intelligence, the correct and honest path is to WAIT until there is clear and reliable intelligence.

I'd like to point out that it would be up to the CIA as to inform him as to the reliably of the intelligence, if the CIA says X peice of intelligence is rock solid he's gotta go with that. However it is up to him to decide wither there is enough intelligence of high enough quality (as informed by the CIA and other intelligence staff) for it to be actionable.

It seems we only impeach presidents for minor personal indiscretions, not leading the whole country into an illconceived war.

Actually Clinton was impeached for perjury (not something I consider a minor personal indiscretion), which is pretty cut and dried as far as things go. Now wither he should have had to testify on his affair in the first place is an entirely different matter.

BTW, I have to point out that random capitalization of words* and such things as spelling Iraq as Irak doesn't help your position, while immaterial to the point it makes you come off as a kook, with the end result of people not even bothering to listen to your position in the first place.

* Italics would suit you better when needed for emphasis as opposed to caps which are the internet version of shouting, reread your posts but shout the all caps words and you'll see what I'm getting at.

If you will look at the credible reports on the subject you will find that the CIA and other intelligence sources were far from telling Bush that the intelligence on WMD's in Iraq was rock solid, as you say. In fact, it was far from rock solid and Bush knew it.

As to Clinton: Clinton lied and deceived about a matter of almost NO national or international import. I was embarrassed about a personal faux pau. Had no one ever discovered it, who would have cared? On the other hand, Bush has lied, deceieved and misled the american people into a war that has killed hundreds of americans. How many people did Clinton's lie kill?

PS. As to my spelling---mia culpa. I'll have to make sure I haul my dictionary around day and night so as to no offend your tender sensibilities on the subject. As to CAPs, who made you the authority on how I should chose to emphasize? Live with it, I ain't changin'!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Faerie@Sep 20 2004, 06:16 AM

well if BUSH lied, then Clinton lied...

ya know, to top that off: kerry lied, hillary lied, ted kennedy lied, etc, etc, etc...

This whole ordeal wasn't unique to Bush Jr. It's not like he came into office and said "Hey guys, get THIS!!" This has been going on for 20+ years and there are tons and tons of quotes from the Clintons and crew where THEY felt that Iraq was an immediate threat, that Iraq had WMD's, that Iraq was tied to Al-Qaeda, etc, etc, etc...so were THEY lying in the 90's??

*edited to say*

I'd take first hand eye witness information like what Outshined wrote over any conspiracy theories any day...

Give me a break! Outshined and his pals in Iraq get sick and suddenly there are WMD's in Iraq. Outshined admits, inadvertently I sure, that he didn't find WMD's there, and he's sure Saddam must have carted them off to somewhere. While we are demanding proof, how about proof of that?!

[Faerie]

Cal, how do you explain Clinton's bombing of Iraq due to WMDs and breach of protocol w/ the UN? How do you explain the hours and hours of testimony given during the Clinton administration on how Iraq needed to be handled ASAP due to being a threat and due to the knowledge given by the CIA that they possessed WMDs and were willing to sell them to other terrorists? How do you explain Kerry's own words during Clinton's administration that Iraq was a direct threat to the US and that Saddam Hussein had flagrantly disobeyed the UN resolutions?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 20 2004, 04:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 20 2004, 04:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 19 2004, 07:11 PM

it is not speculation that Halliburton and other american contractors have been given a windfall of contracts in rebuilding Iraqi oil recovery and refining operations. And it is no secret that many other large business interests are exploiting the Iraqi economy in other ways.

Halliburton and co are the only ones in the world who specialize in this kind of rebuilding or are capable of it, especially as quickly as they do it. You have another company in mind, perhaps?

And I've seen the blaket accusation several times about how it's "no secret" that "many other large business interests" are "exploiting the Iraqi economy in other ways". Evidence and sources for this accusation, please. Too many people make these kind of accusations with no proof, like the accusation that we went to war for oil or for revenge.

None of these people have been there...

Halliburton--of course they specialize in oil hardware. Why do you think a war with Iraq is such a bonanza for them?

[Cal]

Originally posted by helgaboy@Sep 20 2004, 05:33 PM

I am glad to see there are some other rational thinkers who agree this war was a tereble idea. It wouldn't have mattered what intellegence had or had not uncovered as Bush was just unstoppable when it came to war in Iraq regaurdless of what his advisors told him. Even if you give him that Iraq would have happened sooner or later he has turned it into a three ring circus. He may say it is not his fault things have gone "awry" but he is the commander in chief and he needs to be held responsable. We also need someone who has some sort of plan to get out of Iraq and I have NO faith Bush has any clue what he is doing his enterance strategy is proof of that!

By George, I think he has it right!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 20 2004, 05:52 PM

I am a rational thinker, I have the benefit of having served in Iraq twice so far, and believe we were right to go in.

My nephew was in Iraq and has the exact opposite view from you, Outshined. He sees it as virtually unwinnable, and a terrible mistake. So much for "I was there, I know" arguments.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Sep 20 2004, 06:43 PM

Cal,

Is someone else using your username?

Nothing personal; it's just that I remember your previous posts being a little more nuanced.  And literate.

It seems we only impeach presidents for minor personal indiscretions, not leading the whole country into an illconceived war.

The Cal I knew was a lawyer. I doubt a good lawyer would dismiss perjury so lightly as a "personal indiscretion." Impeachment may have been a heavy hammer, but the nature of the Presidency means that the other available sanctions (like a couple of nights in jail) aren't available. It's either impeachment, or the President is effectively above the law.

My personal view was that after 9/11, any country that sponsored any international terrorism was fair game. State-sponsored terrorism should have been considered an act of war from the beginning; after 9/11, some people came around to that view. Saddam had Ansar al-Islam, the Zarqawi faction, Abu Nidal, and Abu Abbas under his wing, not to mention his financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers. I would have been happier if we'd knocked off Iran or Syria first, but Iraq was dumb enough to offer us the legal basis for using force by violating the 1991 armistice.

I don't dismiss perjury lightly, but I am bright enough to be able to make the distinction between the KIND of lie being told and the subject matter involved. Are you?

I would expect a lawyer, such as yourself, to be able to make the distinction between terrorism directed toward the United States and terrorism directed toward other countries. Since when did we commit hundreds of thousands of american lives to a war based on terrorism (and I don't mean all out invasion) directed at other middle east countries? Where is the evidence that Saddam sponsored any terrorism against the United States? Of course your best buddy Bush wanted us all to think that. And was willing to lie about it.But as it turns out, Saddam didn't even have the resources to threaten a ground hog. Clinton had already seen to that.

[john doe]

Well, I'm convinced now. Saddam was born a poor black child in the hills of Mississippi. Or was that Navin Johnson? I forget. But anyway, there is no proof that he ever did anything wrong, all his rivals in Iraq somehow ended up dead, but that doesn't concern anyone. Scud missiles? Hey, if you can't drive one over to my house, then it means that you were lying about their existence. Chemical weapons? I don't personally know any of those supposed Kurds (are they even a real tribe?) who died from them, so that must be made up too. And all those reports of WMD components and pieces of manufacturing facilities being found in nearby bordering areas of Syria and Jordan? Lies, all of them. Saddam had no money, if he did, then they wouldn't have found him hiding out in a hole. If he had money, he would have been living at the Baghdad Marriott, not on some run-down farm in a hole. Or maybe he hasn't even been caught, I haven't seen him with my own eyes other than what they show on TV, and we all know how they can manipulate TV to show whatever they want. Yup, it's all just a big scam perpetrated on the American public, all orchestrated to get GWB reelected.

I say we all vote for Kerry and maybe we can all experience the trick that happened on the TV show Dallas, we can all wake up one day and find out that the last 4 years never really happened, they were just a dream. Because we all know how Kerry will handle Iraq, right? Except if the last 4 years never happened, Al Gore would be president and we would have been spending the last 4 years raising our taxes so we could find more ways to appease the terrorists. And those towers in New York? We didn't need those anyway, they were just a symbol of how capitalistic we had been and we have since seen the light and are embracing the idea that all we have to do is give everything away to our enemies and convert to Islam and then they will stop attacking us, and we will all be brothers with no animosities, just like Iran and Iraq in the 1980's.

[helgaboy]

I only wish the past four years were, let me correct you, a nightmare. Bush has done so much damage to this country it will be a big clean up job. He is in my book the worst US president ever! Perhaps Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq cause he had the good sense to listen to his advisors when they said it would be a bad idea. why was he so worried Iraq was going to attack us? He still hasn't caught the culprit who DID attack us. I think Osama is somewhere in the world laughing at Bush's incompetence and seeing the rest of the worl turn against us.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 21 2004, 09:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 21 2004, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 20 2004, 05:52 PM

I am a rational thinker, I have the benefit of having served in Iraq twice so far, and believe we were right to go in.

My nephew was in Iraq and has the exact opposite view from you, Outshined. He sees it as virtually unwinnable, and a terrible mistake. So much for "I was there, I know" arguments.

Well, let me adjust that. I was there, I know better than you do. Your nephew obviously saw things differently, thats his perogative. I don't know what his experience was, or where. At least he has the benefit of experience for his negative opinions. We had a lot of guys who were upset just because they didn't want to be there.

Your stance that anyone who disagrees with you must not be a rational thinker is childish, insulting, and disrespectful to those who have much more experience than you do (which is none) in the exact combat zone you're trying to preach about.

[Outshined]

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 21 2004, 08:51 PM

Give me a break!  Outshined and his pals in Iraq get sick and suddenly there are WMD's in Iraq. Outshined admits, inadvertently I sure, that he didn't find WMD's there, and he's sure Saddam must have carted them off to somewhere. While we are demanding proof, how about proof of that?!

If you read the post again, perhaps you'll educate yourself a bit. I never said I got "sick", I said 30 men in the unit on an exploitation mission (search for WMD) developed symptoms of chemical exposure (big difference). I won't go into detail what the symptopms are, as you aren't really interested anyway. Afterward, the barrels they were moving were tested, and came up positive for VX nerve. VX nerve is a type of nerve gas, in case you didn't know. We also had to purify a water source that was contaminated with blister agent (another chemical weapon) and cyanide.

While that is not proof enough for you (and I doubt anything would be), it certainly is for me. Yes, I believe the WMD were either hidden or moved to another country, which would have been fairly easy to do. It's a common theory, not just mine (most experts think they are in Syria).

I believe people like Cal are so committed to thinking the worst about the war at this point that they are very reluctant, if not unable, to see the good we've done or the possibility that we were right to go in. I doubt that anything will sway such people, even if they were to turn up a chemical plant full of WMD. That's just an excuse to gripe anyway. We stopped one of the worst tyrants in the world, and still they complain.

Oh well, it wasn't theirfamilies suffering...

[Cal]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 21 2004, 10:07 PM

Well, I'm convinced now. Saddam was born a poor black child in the hills of Mississippi. Or was that Navin Johnson? I forget. But anyway, there is no proof that he ever did anything wrong, all his rivals in Iraq somehow ended up dead, but that doesn't concern anyone. Scud missiles? Hey, if you can't drive one over to my house, then it means that you were lying about their existence. Chemical weapons? I don't personally know any of those supposed Kurds (are they even a real tribe?) who died from them, so that must be made up too. And all those reports of WMD components and pieces of manufacturing facilities being found in nearby bordering areas of Syria and Jordan? Lies, all of them. Saddam had no money, if he did, then they wouldn't have found him hiding out in a hole. If he had money, he would have been living at the Baghdad Marriott, not on some run-down farm in a hole. Or maybe he hasn't even been caught, I haven't seen him with my own eyes other than what they show on TV, and we all know how they can manipulate TV to show whatever they want. Yup, it's all just a big scam perpetrated on the American public, all orchestrated to get GWB reelected.

I say we all vote for Kerry and maybe we can all experience the trick that happened on the TV show Dallas, we can all wake up one day and find out that the last 4 years never really happened, they were just a dream. Because we all know how Kerry will handle Iraq, right? Except if the last 4 years never happened, Al Gore would be president and we would have been spending the last 4 years raising our taxes so we could find more ways to appease the terrorists. And those towers in New York? We didn't need those anyway, they were just a symbol of how capitalistic we had been and we have since seen the light and are embracing the idea that all we have to do is give everything away to our enemies and convert to Islam and then they will stop attacking us, and we will all be brothers with no animosities, just like Iran and Iraq in the 1980's.

Inspite of what may or may not have happened under Gore, or Kerry for that matter, we DO know what has happened under Bush-----we were attacked for the first time in a mayor way and got into a war that has cost at least 1000 american lives-----not to mention that in four short years we have returned to record deficits ( so much for the beauty of tax cuts---oh, I forgot, our kids can pay for it, while we merrily excess spend)

BTW---the fact of the matter is, Saddam was threatening NOBODY at the time we decided that he had to go, ignoring the predictable scenario that we now face in this country---years of civil strife and increased terrorism, not less. Saddam may have been a monster, but the damage to his country, I predict, will pale in comparison to what we have unleased.

[Cal]

Originally posted by helgaboy@Sep 21 2004, 10:28 PM

I only wish the past four years were, let me correct you, a nightmare. Bush has done so much damage to this country it will be a big clean up job. He is in my book the worst US president ever! Perhaps Clinton didn't go to war with Iraq cause he had the good sense to listen to his advisors when they said it would be a bad idea. why was he so worried Iraq was going to attack us? He still hasn't caught the culprit who DID attack us. I think Osama is somewhere in the world laughing at Bush's incompetence and seeing the rest of the worl turn against us.

Glad to hear a voice of reality! Bush indeed has had his nose in the wrong "mouse hole" as one commentator put it. Bush had us all believing that Saddam was somehow behind 911, and used that fear to fuel his own personal vendetta against Saddam. Basically he used the whole country to further his own personal ideological and personal goal, and didn't mind misleading the country to do it. If gross incompetence were an element of impeachment, he would qualify.

The fact is that if he didn't know there were no serious WMD's in Iraq, he should have; it was his job to know before acting, and to at the very least make the american public aware of the doubts that were there. Actually, the inspectors told us all that there weren't any, but our own leaders down played that. Turns out the inspectors were right, and we were wrong. Bush has made a laughing stock of the the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world. He is truely a national disaster and has to go.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 03:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 03:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 21 2004, 09:09 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 20 2004, 05:52 PM

I am a rational thinker, I have the benefit of having served in Iraq twice so far, and believe we were right to go in.

My nephew was in Iraq and has the exact opposite view from you, Outshined. He sees it as virtually unwinnable, and a terrible mistake. So much for "I was there, I know" arguments.

Well, let me adjust that. I was there, I know better than you do. Your nephew obviously saw things differently, thats his perogative. I don't know what his experience was, or where. At least he has the benefit of experience for his negative opinions. We had a lot of guys who were upset just because they didn't want to be there.

Your stance that anyone who disagrees with you must not be a rational thinker is childish, insulting, and disrespectful to those who have much more experience than you do (which is none) in the exact combat zone you're trying to preach about.

You don't have to rub your nose in the dirt of Bagdad to be able to see the fruitlessness of what we are doing there. All we have succeeded in doing is driving most of Saddam's loyalists back into their houses where they, and the rest of the factions can throw home made bombs at us ad infinitum, quite reminicent of the Vietnam war. You can't fight an enemy that is interspersed with the rest of the population unless you want to demolish the whole place. Now they all have one common enemy, us. Sure there are a sizable number who want us there, but that doesn't cut it. As long as there is a significant number of people who hate us on their "sacred" holy soil we are going to continue to lose american soldiers and accomplish zip. The Iraqis have to solve their own problems----as far as I am concerned their problems aren't worth one single american life. We need to be putting our resources into problems we can solve, not sticking our noses in and creating ones we can't.

Our problem is supposed to be Osama, not the Iraqi militants which posed no demonstrable threat to any americans, until Bush created them!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 03:16 AM

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

Why do I care which company is doing it? What I care about is WHY we are there at all. As to all these "disappearing" WMD's, your position is predictable in that you are clearly already convinced that there must be WMD's otherwise Bush is a big fat liar, and we can't face that possibility, can we? So we must convince ourselves that Saddam made them all disappear just before we invaded. Strange how he was willing to use WMD's on the Kurds, but just couldn't bring him self to unleash them on our soldiers. The fact of the matter is that what ever he had back in the early nineties was gone by the time we invaded, and we can thank Clinton for that, whether you like it or not.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 03:16 AM

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

2. Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3. Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

4. Unemployment rises.

5. Does virtually nothing about the rising costs of health care.

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

I could go on-----best president, I don't think so.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 03:16 AM

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

2. Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3. Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

4. Unemployment rises.

5. Does virtually nothing about the rising costs of health care.

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

I could go on-----best president, I don't think so.

Don't kid yourself. Several of those things happened in response to 9/11, and would have happened no matter who was president. And the only reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because of the mess Clinton made with the presidency. Bin Laden, et al, assumed that Bush would roll over and play dead the way Clinton did. I am sure that if he knew that Bush would retaliate in force, it would not have happened. So, ultimately, it was Clinton's fault.

[Dravin]

Originally posted by Cal+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.Stock market crashes

That was caused by 9/11 and an already slowing economy (the .com bubble burst before he was in office and even if it didn't wouldn't have had anything to do with him) and the President really doesn't have as much control over the economy as a lot of people think they do, of course Presidents always seem to try to take the credit when things are good and point out the above when things are bad.

Originally posted by Cal+--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

2.Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3.Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

Now that you can pin on him, I'd like to point out that wither number three is good or not depend on ones position, I am all for drilling in ANWR but many would consider that happening to be a horrid environmental setback, I wouldn't.

Originally posted by -Cal

4.Unemployment rises.

See number one, not as in control of this as some people think.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal@

6.Fails to protect America from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental American soil.

I'm sorry, but the President is not clairvoyant, there seems to be a lot of back and forth over wither 9/11 could have reasonably have been avoided, hindsight is 20/20 and nothing is more annoying then people shouting, “You should have done this because X is clear” when such wasn't the case at the time that whatever should have been done.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal

7.Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8.Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9.Lies to the American people about the reasons for going to war.

10.Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway

I assume number seven is about Iraq, so I give you all four of these as well. As for number eight, the key is arrogantly, a little diplomacy and a little less show boating would have kept quite a few hackles from getting raised. Nine I might contend with except for the fact when it was found out his intelligence was wrong he didn't apologize to the American people or admit he was wrong, no he simply switched the focus of the war, it went from stopping the WMD to freeing the Iraqi people as a flagship reason.

The short attention spans of some people make me think of 1984 actually.

[Faerie]

yes nevermind the fact that Al Qaeda had been planning the 9/11 attacks for FOUR YEARS..it's ALL BUSH'S FAULT...

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 07:44 AM

As to all these "disappearing" WMD's, your position is predictable in that you are clearly already convinced that there must be WMD's otherwise Bush is a big fat liar, and we can't face that possibility, can we? So we must convince ourselves that Saddam made them all disappear just before we invaded. Strange how he was willing to use WMD's on the Kurds, but just couldn't bring him self to unleash them on our soldiers. The fact of the matter is that what ever he had back in the early nineties was gone by the time we invaded, and we can thank Clinton for that, whether you like it or not.

My position on WMD is predictable because I've seen the evidence, I've had to help clean it up. Why didn't he use them on US troops? If you think back, we told him we'd nuke him if he used them, and we would have. That was all over the news, even in Kuwait, so surely you knew. He did the smart thing and got rid of them, whether you like it or not.

If you think he got rid of anything because of Clinton , you are way out of touch with reality. Militarily, Clinton was probably the weakest president of the 20th century. No one was intimidated by him, least of all Hussein. You can't even be serious about that one.

So keep your fingers in your ears and keep chanting "it's not true" over and over.

Maybe you'll manage to convince yourself...

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 07:51 AM

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

Since you've already been well answered on the first five, I'll address the rest myself.

6. This is a copout, and you know it. This is actually a great triumph, as he brought America through one of the most disastrous attacks in history.

7. No, we don't have OBL yet, unless you believe the conspiracy theories about it. We're still working on it, but feel free to chip in and help whenever you get tired of backseat driving. -The attack on Iraq was just, so it doesn't really apply in your complaint.

8. The UN is a puppet organization that no one pays attention to anyway unless they want something from them. Rwanda ignored them, Somalia ignored them, Iraq ignored them, etc... they have no real purpose in today's world.

9. The President never lied. I've posted the CIA report before (maybe you should read it); if I were in his position, I would have responded to it as well. If he hadn't people like you would be crying that he should have. That's a fact.

10. He has stated that we'll exit when we feel Iraq is ready to stand on its own. I'll go along with his plan even though it means I'll probably end up back in Iraq again. Won't really affect you, but feel free to complain.

Yes, certainly an excellent president that the military members can actually respect.

[Outshined]

According to the UN, Iraq exported WMD before and after the war had started in 2003.

ARTICLE

But, but... they didn't have any! ...Right?

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 02:24 PM

According to the UN, Iraq exported WMD before and after the war had started in 2003.

But, but... they didn't have any!        ...Right?

Umm, right. Bush was wrong.

[Faerie]

so you're denying a UN report?