Bush Intrigues...

[Moi]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
I think we all agree that Clinton has the morals of a goat. And he disgraced himself, humiliated his wife and treated Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones like trash. But lying about consensual sex in the Oval Office and lying to justify a war are not even comparable.

Actually you are right they are not comparable.

I'd rather have a president who points his weapons towards the deserving enemy rather than a president who maligns and damages 50% of his own country's population. Clinton, in my eyes, is far more dangerous than Bush will ever be and repercussions of his action far more sinister.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Moi
Actually you are right they are not comparable.

I'd rather have a president who points his weapons towards the deserving enemy rather than a president who maligns and damages 50% of his own country's population. Clinton, in my eyes, is far more dangerous than Bush will ever be and repercussions of his action far more sinister.

I think yer visions a little blurry. Been to an optometrist lately fer yer myopia?

 

[wonderwench]

Moi has 20-20 vision on this issue, BP.

The Clinton Legacy is incredibly damaging...and the full effects will take years to identify and address.

 

[tottynathan]

Originally posted by Moi
Actually you are right they are not comparable.

I'd rather have a president who points his weapons towards the deserving enemy rather than a president who maligns and damages 50% of his own country's population. Clinton, in my eyes, is far more dangerous than Bush will ever be and repercussions of his action far more sinister.

I'd rather you had a president who could distinguish between real and immediate enemies. I rather you had a president with the balls to stand up and say today we will free a people (Iraq for example) from a tyrant, today we will fight a humanitarian war. Instead your president has little or no faith in the people of America, believing instead tha as a nation you find greater honour saving yourselves from some imagined threat (I'm talking nation states here, not terrorism), than giving a people the opportunity to emancipate themselves. Clinton and Blair were the first statesman ever to violate the sovereignty principle and engage in a humanitarian war.

Don't get me wrong here, Iraq had to go, but is not disturbing to us all, as the ones with the power to decide the fate of our leaders, that they felt they had to fabricate a selfish threat to the individaul in order to gain the support for the war? Is it really the case that had they asked us to fight in order to free the Iraqi's we would have said no?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by tottynathan
Don't get me wrong here, Iraq had to go, but is not disturbing to us all, as the ones with the power to decide the fate of our leaders, that they felt they had to fabricate a selfish threat to the individaul in order to gain the support for the war? Is it really the case that had they asked us to fight in order to free the Iraqi's we would have said no?

Another conspiracy theorist.

Do you have evidence of what was fabricated?

 

[tottynathan]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Another conspiracy theorist.

Do you have evidence of what was fabricated?

Semantics, not conspiracy theory. Insert where appropriate any of the following, suppossed, possible, illeged, hitherto uncovered, until your happy.

The point of the the post remains: Are we willing to go to war only when there is a direct threat (real or not) to ourselves. Had a different reason for invading Iraq, i.e on humanitarian grounds been given, would we still have supported the war?

Blair wanted to go to war for this reason alone, but was convincecd that it could not be sold to the British and American publics. To put the question another way, was Blair right?

 

[jimnyc]

Semantics, not conspiracy theory. Insert where appropriate any of the following, suppossed, possible, illeged, hitherto uncovered, until your happy.

Those words sound a bit more appropriate than 'fabricated'.

The point of the the post remains: Are we willing to go to war only when there is a direct threat (real or not) to ourselves. Had a different reason for invading Iraq, i.e on humanitarian grounds been given, would we still have supported the war?

Humanitarian reasons have been given for over 10 years and were part of all the UN resolutions. The WMD was highlighted after 9/11. Never were humanitarian reasons taken off the table. I support both, or either one alone.

Blair wanted to go to war for this reason alone, but was convincecd that it could not be sold to the British and American publics. To put the question another way, was Blair right?

Who's to say if he was right. He made a judgement call based on intel that he thought was in the best interest of his people and the world. Blame him for bad judgement? Possibly, then blame everyone else who came to the same conclusions. 90% of the US government did, republicans and democrats alike.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by wonderwench
Moi has 20-20 vision on this issue, BP.

The Clinton Legacy is incredibly damaging...and the full effects will take years to identify and address.

Given Bush's ties to the Bin Ladens, Salem Bin Laden helped bankroll Harken Energy when Dubbyuh was on the board, whose legacy will be called into question?

Clinton and Bush are BOTH scumbags, from what I've seen, Bush is the bigger sack 'o crap.