For the record .. it's spelled 'Bush'... Just to help you out 20 years from now when your kids are talking about Iraq as the 'new Japan', and wondering what smart S.O.B. had the brains 20 years earlier to notice that democracy had saved more lives than appeasement ever had..
From CC:Ah, yes, it is entertaining to see the right-wing representatives boldly predict so far into the future that they'll never have to account for their own predictions. Twenty years down the road? One can only hope you have better luck with your predictions than the current administration had with theirs regarding Iraq. Sorry, what was all that about a "cakewalk" and deliriously joyous Iraqis throwing flowers in the path of American troops?And as for Admiral Bunnypants being man of the year, one can only assume it had nothing to do with actual success or results. Ignoring a painfully obvious warning that Al Qaeda intended to attach within the United States; launching an unprovoked attack on another nation that had *nothing* to do with that attack; Osama bin Laden still at large and making videos; a raging deficit and tanking dollar; 1100 (no, wait, 1200, no, hang on, 1300??) dead American troops in Iraq; woefully underequipped troops and a Secretary of Defense who can't be bothered to sign letters of condolence; environmental neglect; ... My, the list does go on, don't it?But, hey, I guess we can all take solace in the fact that freedom is on the march in Iraq, right? Oh, wait:http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/21/iraq.main/index.htmlOops.
CCSee perhaps you weren't aware: 1.5 MILLION FREAKIN' IRAQIS starved to death during the U.N.'s merciful (+ profitable!!) sanctions program during the nineties. Half of the dead (murdered by Kofi & Bill, really) were children according to UNICEF. But of course, it was a FAR better option than what we have now right? The point is that with the current admin's actions at least those pour souls have a chance at a decent life, whereas the U.N. approach offered only permanent destitution.Some of your other 'points' apply equally as well to Clinton, but of course since he's one of 'your guys' it's impossible for you to judge his actions rationally. Let me elaborate:-"Ignoring a painfully obvious warning that Al Qaeda intended to attach(k) within the United States"Umm .. Clinton ignored a rather painfully obvious Al Qaeda attack within the United States EVEN AFTER IT HAPPENED!! He could have had Osama, chose instead to boff Monica & kick 'da bums' off welfare. Tanx Bill!-"launching an unprovoked attack on another nation"3 words: Kosovo, Asprin Factory-"a raging deficit and tanking dollar"Agreed there. Newt errrr Bill managed the economy in the '90s much better than George has-"environmental neglect"Agreed there too. I mean, the US should have done like my country Canada has and signed up to Kyoto only to COMPLETELY MISS it's targets. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/08/%20pollution_report_041208.htmlBut hey, even if the world were to meet the Kyoto protocol's targets, we'd STILL only be delaying global warming by 6 years. Better to feel better about ourselves than actually do something about them, right? Trust me: George's R&D investments in Fuel Cell research will do far more to save the planet down the road than some feel-good docu-signing. I mean, if the US were serious about reducing pollution, here's a clue: BAN SUVs!! Did Clinton do it? No. Will George? No.
From CC:Oh, my. It really still is all Clinton's fault for you people, isn't it? This really is the "not our fault" administration, isn't it? As the commercial goes -- always having someone else to blame: priceless.Regarding Bill Clinton giving bin Laden a pass, I recommend BIll Press' piece here:http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/column.billpress/As Press points out, given how the far right hounded Clinton for getting a little sumthin' sumthin', it's amazing he could get anything at all done.And as for Clinton letting bin Laden walk, how convenient that you ignore Bush and his band of merry idiots, who let terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi off the hook. Read about it here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/or here:http://slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108880&or just Google on "bush" and "zarqawi" for a truckload of similar articles.As the right wing's hero Ronald Reagan once said, "Facts are stupid things." And pretty gosh-darned inconvenient, too, apparently.
From CC:By the way, boys and girls, it's worth noticing a cutesy rhetorical trick pulled by Compelled2Blog (who, sadly, doesn't have the same motivation to be Compelled2Reason).You see, as everyone knows, the right-wing howler monkeys can't give Clinton credit for the spiffy economy under his administration. Which is why C2B writes, "Newt errrr Bill managed the economy in the '90s much better than George has."See how that works? If it's bad, it's Bill's fault cuz he was president. If it's good, well, that's due to the Republicans at the time.These people truly are the "all of the credit and none of the blame" crowd. You may not know where the buck stops, but you can be sure that it NEVER stops with them.
Okay there CC ... Here's something that may blow your mind but : NEITHER CLINTON OR BUSH ARE PERFECT!! Bush made mistakes, Clinton made mistakes. Kerry supported the war in Iraq, Bush supported the war in Iraq, Clinton supported the war in Iraq, Al Gore supported the war in Iraq, Madeleine Albright supported the war in Iraq .. That was the point of my post - the evil in the world isn't Bush's fault any more than it's Clinton's. And the blame game will destroy your country if you can't see leaders for who they are instead of who they're sold as. I mean, is it not a logical flow to suggest that i) if Bush voted to invade Iraq, he is a warmonger. Hence, it must follow that ii) Albright, Gore, Clinton, and Kerry (when he was running against Dean at least) are warmongers as well since they are ALL ON RECORD as being supportive of the war. Please explain to me how this is not so because I just don't see it (in 5 posts or less this time please)
Post a Comment