JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,522
- 2,165
- Banned
- #321
GWB is responsible for the worst foreign policy mistake in American history, not WJC.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?
if you're addressing me, never.
invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.
When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?
if you're addressing me, never.
invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.
Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.
It was Clinton though who made it US Policy to remove Saddam from power when he signed the Iraqi Freedom Act 1998.
And no one was claiming that.When did a contribution towards something become the whole something?
if you're addressing me, never.
invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.
Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.
And no one was claiming that.if you're addressing me, never.
invading iraq in 2003 was the single worst foreign policy decision in the history of the united states. period. bush did it; he owns it.
Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.
What he was doing was excusing Bush's actions by pointing at Clinton.
No, you'd have to take out the word wholly. I don't think Dud blamed it wholly on Clinton, rather he was being an apologist for Bush.And no one was claiming that.Wasn't addressing you. I was saying that no reasonable person reading Dude's post could come to the conclusion that Dude was pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush.
What he was doing was excusing Bush's actions by pointing at Clinton.
Which is another way of saying:
"pinning the Iraq fiasco wholly on Clinton while absolving Bush."
Right. Neocons are socially liberal which is in contradictory to the tenets of the Christian Right. However, the Christian Right proved useful for elections. The neocons running (except for GWB - thus his utility in wooing that demographic) did indeed keep their social liberalism on the down-low to keep that voting demographic.It has been my experience, that people who consider themselves Neoconservatives etc, are often social authoritarians as well as military authoritarians. Many of them truly believe it is our duty to save the world from itself, thereby keeping the U.S. safe and morally whole, in one way or another. Many of them love their big government just as much as Democrats like Pelosi. They may not come right out and admit it, but talking with them on various points, it becomes all too clear.
That looks like a collage of the Christian Right (social authoritarian) with the Neocons (military authoritarian).
True Neocons are generally liberal on social policies but have kept that on the down low to gain the evangelical vote. Victor Gold has a decent book about how those two camps raped my Party 8 million ways from Tuesday. The CR, and this may be news to some, adore the Neocon ideology not for earthly goals but mainly from their eschatological view. They truly believe supporting our imperialism will help hasten the attack on Israel that will lead directly into their vision of the book of Revelations. Don't believe any of this is true? Look at how Palin was gathering resources to prepare Alaska to be a safe haven after the "Rapture."
I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.Really Del?
saying clinton contributed to the iraq mess is a far cry from blaming clinton for bush's actions.
The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.
Right. Neocons are socially liberal which is in contradictory to the tenets of the Christian Right. However, the Christian Right proved useful for elections. The neocons running (except for GWB - thus his utility in wooing that demographic) did indeed keep their social liberalism on the down-low to keep that voting demographic.It has been my experience, that people who consider themselves Neoconservatives etc, are often social authoritarians as well as military authoritarians. Many of them truly believe it is our duty to save the world from itself, thereby keeping the U.S. safe and morally whole, in one way or another. Many of them love their big government just as much as Democrats like Pelosi. They may not come right out and admit it, but talking with them on various points, it becomes all too clear.
That looks like a collage of the Christian Right (social authoritarian) with the Neocons (military authoritarian).
True Neocons are generally liberal on social policies but have kept that on the down low to gain the evangelical vote. Victor Gold has a decent book about how those two camps raped my Party 8 million ways from Tuesday. The CR, and this may be news to some, adore the Neocon ideology not for earthly goals but mainly from their eschatological view. They truly believe supporting our imperialism will help hasten the attack on Israel that will lead directly into their vision of the book of Revelations. Don't believe any of this is true? Look at how Palin was gathering resources to prepare Alaska to be a safe haven after the "Rapture."
Yes, it is written that sanctions killed an estimated 500,000...but just because it is written doesn't make it true (I've seen no actual evidence of this claim, ever). And that would be Saddam's fault, either way.I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.saying clinton contributed to the iraq mess is a far cry from blaming clinton for bush's actions.
The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.
Clinton's contribution was not causation but he sure helped pave the way for the invasion. It wasn't a necessary condition but his continued aerial attacks and maintaining of policies through the UN caused a hell of a lot of destruction. He killed innocent iraqis just like Bush but that doesn't mean the 03' invasion can be laid at Clinton,s feet. Remember, on May 12th 1996 his Sec of State was asked about the Sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 and her response was to say the "price was worth it to avoid an invasion." i'm sure the clip from 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl is still online.
Yes, it is written that sanctions killed an estimated 500,000...but just because it is written doesn't make it true (I've seen no actual evidence of this claim, ever). And that would be Saddam's fault, either way.I disagree. Clinton kept Saddam in check...Bush got hysterical. Pointing at Clinton for what Bush did is taking the responsibility of Bush's actions off of Bush's shoulders.
The mess in Iraq was not Clinton's doing.
Clinton's contribution was not causation but he sure helped pave the way for the invasion. It wasn't a necessary condition but his continued aerial attacks and maintaining of policies through the UN caused a hell of a lot of destruction. He killed innocent iraqis just like Bush but that doesn't mean the 03' invasion can be laid at Clinton,s feet. Remember, on May 12th 1996 his Sec of State was asked about the Sanctions that killed an estimated 500,000 and her response was to say the "price was worth it to avoid an invasion." i'm sure the clip from 60 Minutes with Leslie Stahl is still online.