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

 

That's another thread.

We all were a little trigger happy after 9/11, so it's understandable how a decision to invade Iraq could have been made.If it ends up being judged by historians as a mistake, naturally it is Bush who will take the fall, as he should.Conversely, he'll get the credit if it ends up being deemed a success.

Well, George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He isn't supposed to make trigger-happy decisions.

 

As commander-in-chief, he has an awesome responsibility to make responsible decisions as to when to deploy our troops and put them in harm's way. I feel like that if he's going to commit them to a full-scale war, he has the obligation to get it right.

You're wrong. Do a google search for "Andrew Johnson" and impeached.

 

Or check this out ... Let's get this impeachment story correct

Cleared of what? Was there a crime committed there?

I'm not defending Bill Clinton for what he did. He committed perjury ... no doubt about it.

 

My beef was with the anti-Clinton forces that were obsessed with destroying him and impeached him for lying about a sexual tryst, something that had little or nothing do with his ability to perform his job.

 

And ... let's be honest. Clinton has a point about the Republicans' attitude toward the action he tried to take against bin Laden. They accused him of trying to detract attention from Monicagate ... the "Wag the Dog" strategy.

 

In reality, true to the accusation, he was distracted ... because the anti-Clinton forces were bent on pursuing their agenda.

 

Johnson was impeached by the House, and the Senate was one vote short of removing him from office.

Well, George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He isn't supposed to make trigger-happy decisions.

 

As commander-in-chief, he has an awesome responsibility to make responsible decisions as to when to deploy our troops and put them in harm's way. I feel like that if he's going to commit them to a full-scale war, he has the obligation to get it right.

So after FDR committed our troops to a two front war and suffered early losses should that have been judged as a failed response?

I dont think so...it took many years for us to help rebuild Germany and Japan and it was not easy and something that took place overnight.

This war on terror is a whole seperate entity. We are fighting groups of people that observe no rule of law,that call no independent coutnry their own, one that has no terrrtorial boundries, that are not bound to the Geneva Convention, and will willingly chop heads off of innocent people yet we have people in our own country that want them to be treated as everyday citizens.

Excuse me while I puke...

The prison at Gitmo is much nicer than many of our own prisons here in the states and these terrorists get better accomodations than most prisoners here in our country and yet they should be allowed certain rights.

Excuse me if I find a major fault in that.

Preach on Brother Bill.:thumb:

Actually Clinton is wrong in this regard or simply lying.

Al-Qaeda was behind the attacks in Somalia. The message intercepts were being relayed in Arabic, not in the native language of the warlords. Clintons own staff had recognized the bin Laden/al-Qaeda threat in 1993, during the same time Clinton acknowledged that no one knew that A-Q exisited.

So after FDR committed our troops to a two front war and suffered early losses should that have been judged as a failed response?

The war in Iraq is not comparable to World War II, when we were at war with a country that attacked us and their ally that also declared war on us.

 

Iraq didn't attack us. We chose to invade Iraq for questionable reasons.

This war on terror is a whole seperate entity. We are fighting groups of people that observe no rule of law,that call no independent coutnry their own, one that has no terrrtorial boundries, that are not bound to the Geneva Convention, and will willingly chop heads off of innocent people yet we have people in our own country that want them to be treated as everyday citizens.

I don't disagree with any of that. I just don't equate the invasion of Iraq with the War on Terror.

I understand they are two seperate entities. I was merely questioning the gut of the American people after things have not gone as smoothly as many thought.

In my opinion, there are tow immediate opponents, the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam and the rogue dictatorships that empower the radical islamists.

You can not bargain with terrorists. They live in a totally different world, one that is barbaric and uncivilized.

Iraq was in that second category. We had every reason to believe Saddam would give or sell WMD's to a varoety of terrorist groups. He had been closely tied to terrorists and had an interest in aiding them attack the United States. Remember, Iraq went completely unchecked for quite a few years in the last 90's and we allowed the UN to deal with them, which in the end was a fiasco in the "oil for food" scandals.

That is how I find this war justified. It simply is a matter of being proactive than reactive.

I understand they are two seperate entities. I was merely questioning the gut of the American people after things have not gone as smoothly as many thought.

In my opinion, there are tow immediate opponents, the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam and the rogue dictatorships that empower the radical islamists.

You can not bargain with terrorists. They live in a totally different world, one that is barbaric and uncivilized.

Iraq was in that second category. We had every reason to believe Saddam would give or sell WMD's to a varoety of terrorist groups. He had been closely tied to terrorists and had an interest in aiding them attack the United States. Remember, Iraq went completely unchecked for quite a few years in the last 90's and we allowed the UN to deal with them, which in the end was a fiasco in the "oil for food" scandals.

That is how I find this war justified. It simply is a matter of being proactive than reactive.

 

Weapons inspectors reported that there were no WMD and U S intelligence and British intelligence told Bush he had no nuclear capability. In fact, the CIA told him not to use the Nuclear Scare Tactic in the state of the union, and he didn't, but he did in his speach from Cincinnati. This was his war of choice.

And this info was supplied by Joe Wilson...correct?

Well, George W. Bush is the President of the United States. He isn't supposed to make trigger-happy decisions.

 

As commander-in-chief, he has an awesome responsibility to make responsible decisions as to when to deploy our troops and put them in harm's way. I feel like that if he's going to commit them to a full-scale war, he has the obligation to get it right.

As it's been beaten to death, it was those with the lack of "trigger-pull" that allowed 9/11 to happen.

I think both sides feel that it should ALWAYS be 100% preventable on terroristic threats. They want to blame someone. And simply sometimes the bad guys win. (Think of all the championships the Yankees have.)

 

I am not sure that either Clinton nor Bush is at fault. I am not sure that this was 100% preventable. Looking back at it, it looks that way.

 

I think both sides want to push that issue because they feel it gains them votes. I think that is hogwash. Sometimes the bad guys win. It is that simple.

 

I like what Bush has consistently said, "They only have to be right once, while we have to be right everytime." If he is right 9999 out of 10,000 times, he will be remembered for the one time he was not.

For those Democrats who haven't received a copy of the playbook:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Air-America-Playbook-Teach-Right/dp/1594865140/ref=sr_11_1/104-5478870-7425538?ie=UTF8

As it's been beaten to death, it was those with the lack of "trigger-pull" that allowed 9/11 to happen.

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... absolutely nothing.

But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ... absolutely nothing.

You made the comment about "pulling the trigger" and that is all I was referring to. Not to mention, I'm well aware of your opinion.