Pres. Clinton and Bin Laden, The TRUTH! - Sunday night

[scooterbob]

I have no problems with the war. My concern is with how we are fighting the war. When you want to get rid of a fly, a straw won't accomplish much. However, a nice, big four-by-four will do the job. We need to fight the war as we did in WWI and WWII. Of course, if the print and broadcast media had the same biases then that they have now, we would likely have lost because we would have had to fight a touchy, feely, politically correct war. You don't win wars by being politically correct.

 

Can anyone imagine the outcome of the Normandy Invasion and the aftermath if it had been covered by today's media? Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, etc. would have been portrayed as heartless demons killing innocent victims and there would have been calls from the left for their court martials and for the impeachment and conviction of FDR.

 

Of course, I suppose that German would come natural to us since it would be our official language.

[westsider]

Well given the events of 9/11 and the fact that the CIA gave Clinton and Bush information that said that Iraq had or intended to have WMD's how can anyone blame Bush for his decision. If he thought there was a possibility that terrorist could end up with chemical, biological, or heaven forbid nuclear weapons I don't blame him. A few Cruise Missles wouldn't do the trick I don't believe.

 

I'm not trying to be arguementitive just trying to put myself in his shoes. If it were my decision Iraq would probably be a parking lot right now.

There is plenty of reason to believe that this administration wanted "regime change" in Iraq, and used the post-9/11 mindset of the American people to gain support for it.

 

Saddam, by the Bush administration's own admission, was "in a box" because of sanctions and unable to rebuild his forces and military capabilities. So ... why the sudden change of heart?

[westsider]

Of course, if the print and broadcast media had the same biases then that they have now, we would likely have lost because we would have had to fight a touchy, feely, politically correct war. You don't win wars by being politically correct.

 

Can anyone imagine the outcome of the Normandy Invasion and the aftermath if it had been covered by today's media? Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, etc. would have been portrayed as heartless demons killing innocent victims and there would have been calls from the left for their court martials and for the impeachment and conviction of FDR.

Another classic "red herring" from the right.

 

The media isn't the problem. They're doing their job, reporting on what is happening in Iraq, yet some insist on blaming the problems in the execution of the war on the messengers.

 

Iraq is not comparable to World War II. Sixty-plus years ago, this country immobilized to fight an enemy that had attacked us and their allies, countries that had declared war on us. Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We chose to invade Iraq. Period.

[spindoc]

Another classic "red herring" from the right.

 

The media isn't the problem. They're doing their job, reporting on what is happening in Iraq, yet some insist on blaming the problems in the execution of the war on the messengers.

 

Iraq is not comparable to World War II. Sixty-plus years ago, this country immobilized to fight an enemy that had attacked us and their allies, countries that had declared war on us. Iraq didn't attack us. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We chose to invade Iraq. Period.

To believe that media outlets don't portray what's happening in Iraq to suit some agenda is contradictory to what so many returning soldiers have reported once on American soil. I for one don't blame the media for anything, however, to think you're getting the plain story is naive or blind. The media has an agenda just like any political entity does!

[Rickyp]

There is plenty of reason to believe that this administration wanted "regime change" in Iraq, and used the post-9/11 mindset of the American people to gain support for it.

 

Saddam, by the Bush administration's own admission, was "in a box" because of sanctions and unable to rebuild his forces and military capabilities. So ... why the sudden change of heart?

 

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you serious? It is easy to sit back now and question the decisions that were made. On September 11, 2001 the whole world changed. If you want to say we are fighting the battle the wrong way or the war in Iraq hasn't went well then those are legit argurements but this second guessing or Bush and/or Clinton is crazy.

 

I'm a registered Democrat and typically vote Republican but most of all I am an American. I think Bill Clinton is an absolute morally corrupt, scumbag but ifhe felt for one second that Iraq or any other country were a threat to our saftey I would support him for taking any action he felt necessary. Especially after 9/11.

[YAKOFNORWEGIA]

Having spent a little time in places like Ft. Irwin, I wonder is civilians realize what you enlist in the Army for. There may be personal goals but they are secondary to team goals. If I would have died in attempt to make it safer for future generations I was willing to accept that, no questions asked. The flag means more to me than the right to argue what I don't agree with. At the end of the day whether I agree or not I have to do my best to support the decision. If Mr. Clinton would have sent me anywhere, while I may not agree, I would have put that aside and performed my duties to the best of my abilities. Why can't people realize that just because you don't get your way it is not personal.

[westsider]

Why the sudden change of heart? Are you serious? It is easy to sit back now and question the decisions that were made. On September 11, 2001 the whole world changed. If you want to say we are fighting the battle the wrong way or the war in Iraq hasn't went well then those are legit argurements but this second guessing or Bush and/or Clinton is crazy.

I'm not "second-guessing" the Bush administration .... I was against going into Iraq from the beginning. Saddam was no threat to us. He had been "in the box" and unable to rebuild his military and weapon capabilities.

 

The "sudden change of heart" wasn't as much so as it was a sudden ability to justify their intentions to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. The Bush administration used 9/11 to sell it, and the American people bought it.

 

Remember the reason Saddam was supposed to be a threat to us? WMDs? They weren't there. He wasn't a threat to us. We sent our troops there on a mission that wasn't vital to the defense of this country.

I'm a registered Democrat and typically vote Republican but most of all I am an American. I think Bill Clinton is an absolute morally corrupt, scumbag but ifhe felt for one second that Iraq or any other country were a threat to our saftey I would support him for taking any action he felt necessary. Especially after 9/11.

I supported Bush's original response of going into Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban, which had given bin Laden a safe haven. We were justified to do so.

 

Iraq was a different story.

[westsider]

Having spent a little time in places like Ft. Irwin, I wonder is civilians realize what you enlist in the Army for. There may be personal goals but they are secondary to team goals. If I would have died in attempt to make it safer for future generations I was willing to accept that, no questions asked. The flag means more to me than the right to argue what I don't agree with. At the end of the day whether I agree or not I have to do my best to support the decision. If Mr. Clinton would have sent me anywhere, while I may not agree, I would have put that aside and performed my duties to the best of my abilities. Why can't people realize that just because you don't get your way it is not personal.

Amen, and thanks for your service.

 

When people criticize the Iraq war, they're not showing a lack of respect and support for the troops ... they're criticizing the administration that chose to send them there. Unfortunately, some choose on labeling it otherwise.

[scooterbob]

To say that the media is merely reporting what is taking place is, to be kind, naive. The theme of the coverage is obviously to accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. This attitude began with Viet Nam, continued in Desert Storm, and has escalated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The continual negative coverage apparently influences the mood of the electorate and clearly effects the decision-making process. I feel quite sure that any alleged "atrocities" being committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what we did in WWI and WWII. The difference was that the country united behind our troops and leaders in the two world wars and we did what was necessary to win. Now, with our severely split nation, we have a goodly number who seem to take great delight in making us the true enemy. That is wrong.

 

I say fight the war like it is a war, forget political correctness, and do whatever it takes to win. The key phrase being "whatever it takes".

[westsider]

The right choice, from the beginning, would have been not to invade Iraq. Unfortunately, we're way past that now.

[Rickyp]

I'm not "second-guessing" the Bush administration .... I was against going into Iraq from the beginning. Saddam was no threat to us. He had been "in the box" and unable to rebuild his military and weapon capabilities.

 

The "sudden change of heart" wasn't as much so as it was a sudden ability to justify their intentions to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. The Bush administration used 9/11 to sell it, and the American people bought it.

 

Remember the reason Saddam was supposed to be a threat to us? WMDs? They weren't there. He wasn't a threat to us. We sent our troops there on a mission that wasn't vital to the defense of this country.

I supported Bush's original response of going into Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban, which had given bin Laden a safe haven. We were justified to do so.

 

Iraq was a different story.

 

Westsider, I did not intend to single you out as a second guesser. This entire discussion came about because of the second guessing directed toward Clinton. So I was speaking in general terms. I have stated numerous times I don't blame Clinton or Bush I truely believe both would have acted differntly if they had known what was going to happen.

[Hatz]

To say that the media is merely reporting what is taking place is, to be kind, naive. The theme of the coverage is obviously to accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. This attitude began with Viet Nam, continued in Desert Storm, and has escalated in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

The continual negative coverage apparently influences the mood of the electorate and clearly effects the decision-making process. I feel quite sure that any alleged "atrocities" being committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what we did in WWI and WWII. The difference was that the country united behind our troops and leaders in the two world wars and we did what was necessary to win. Now, with our severely split nation, we have a goodly number who seem to take great delight in making us the true enemy. That is wrong.

 

I say fight the war like it is a war, forget political correctness, and do whatever it takes to win. The key phrase being "whatever it takes".

 

Not sure I would clump WW I in there with WW II. We did have protests and a lot of dissension over WW I that is conveniently forgotten. Many were placed in jail or harrassed as "Reds" or worse. As for a lot of atrocities we weren't in the war long enough to do much damage. We did not enter the conflict until April of 1917 and did not send troops until almost the end of the year and the war was over in November of 1918.

 

BTW, I don't take any delight in our mis steps along the way. I just try to look at every angle of the picture and see that it is hard to find total innocence and purity in any side of a war. (hard, not impossible.)

[westsider]

Westsider, I did not intend to single you out as a second guesser. This entire discussion came about because of the second guessing directed toward Clinton. So I was speaking in general terms.

No problem. No offense taken.

I have stated numerous times I don't blame Clinton or Bush I truely believe both would have acted differntly if they had known what was going to happen.

I totally agree.

[the mathemagician]

And would have lost to Reagan at every turn. What's your point?

 

Simple. We were talking Clinton and Bush and I simply said Clinton beats Bush in any decade.

[shooter]

Simple. We were talking Clinton and Bush and I simply said Clinton beats Bush in any decade.

 

I agree. Clinton's a much better liar than Bush.