Page 1 of 1

Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:51 am
by Catfish
While it's true I can't stand the back door approach to gun control by tagging and curbing ammo and dislike Obama "buying" into the auto industry and banking community, I do have to think of Bush lying us into a grand scale war losing billions of dollars and countless young men's lives. Remember when thinking of the Bush, "No one died. when Clinton lied". Sadly, we aren't through pouring billions of our bucks into rebuilding Iraq and losing many more of our sons. Imperialism at it's finest.

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:34 am
by Kerry Tobin
Well, I'm not a big Prez Bush fan but it's hard to lay all the blame on him. First, remember that at the time, every country said Iraq had WMDs and a fight may have been inevitable. Second, when we attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan there was a majority support in the US... It's easy to look back and change your mind.

Also, if you're going to look at legacy remember the Bush saved far more people than have been killed, and it has nothing to do with Terrorism. There is no way to know how many people have been saved in Africa due to the Bush era investment and the leadership that pushed other country to provide more aid too...

Just don't get me started on torture, domestic spying and our sudden willingness to give up our rights during his tenure.

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:58 pm
by Floyd Alvin
I keep hearing this about how Bush lied to get us involved in the invasion of Iraq but I have yet to see any reasonable example of exactly what that lie(s) was.

If you are talking about his saying that Saddam Hussein had WMD and then we failed to find any, I’m not buying it, not at all.

Bush went back to the UN and asked and received backing for the attack on Iraq. He didn’t really need to do that. The very first UN resolution was approved by the UN already gave the US permission to do that. It was also the resolution in which they agreed that Iraq had WMD’s and the document that Saddam Hussein himself signed saying he had WMD and agreed to not only destroy them but to disclose how and when he destroyed them and allow UN inspectors in to witness that they were destroyed.

In this resolution there was a very specific deadline. A deadline that came and went with no proof of destroying the weapons, but instead a defiant Hussein did everything he could to keep inspectors out and refused to show proof that he complied with the UN resolution.

Lets’ not forget that it is matter of public record that Iraq had already used chemical weapons against Iran and several occasions and his own people.

At the same time the critics are saying Bush lied about the WMD’s are also the same ones that say he is stupid, bumbling, imbecile.

So, my question is first, why did Hussein sign a document saying he had WMD’s if he did not have them? Second; if he destroyed them whey didn’t he simply comply with the resolution and disclose where and when he destroyed them.

Did Bush dupe all the members of the UN Security Council and the members of US Congress that approved the resolution?

On one had you have Bush being smart enough to lie to and convince the entire US Congress and the entire Security Council of the United Nations. On the other had you have Bush as this bumbling imbecile.

Which is it folks? You can’t have it both ways.

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:32 pm
by ski_lover
I vote for the "bumbling imbicle" myself. The "W" administration and backers always, and I mean always, go back to the UN resolution when it comes to the "Attack in Iraq," the rest of the time the UN is a useless organization. When WMD's weren't found "W" then stated we had to go in because Saddam and I quote "was a bad guy." Now if that's a reason to invade a country then I suggest we also invade in no particular order;
1. North Korea - do leaders get much worse AND they have "the BOMB"
2. Syria - we're always suggesting they're allowing terrorist training camps in their country along with other stuff we don't like.
3. Iran - Can you spell Ahmadinejad? I can't.
4. Venezuela - Hurricane Hugo has nothing on Chavez.
5. Libya - Muammar al-Gaddafi, a US bombing raid on his home may got his attention but he's still a weasel albiet in disguise..
5. Any other number of African nation leaders.
6. China - If its human rights violations you want welcome one and all.
And finally why did Saddam say he had WMD's? Can you say Paper Tiger? Yep, he used gas on the Kurds in '84(we knew it then) and during the Iraq-Iranian war which we were well aware of back when it happened but turned a blind eye towards because, wait for it................. we were supporter's of his war with Iran and provided plenty of funding and dual-use technology, chemicals, and non US origin weaponry along with military intelligence, Special Operations training and direct involvement in warfare against Iran. We were dang near walking hand in hand with the "Bad Guy" then. Of course that was then and this is now.

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:57 am
by MedicDVG
"Nobody died when Clinton lied...." :lol:

Ok. Having been in the country, having seen the Iraqi people up close and personal, and having heard all the liberal clap-trap, knee jerk "Bush sucks" rhetoric, I must respectfully disagree with the whole assertion that Bush lied to get us into Iraq.

Were there WMD's? Certainly there were. Where they are now is still in question. What isn't in question is the fact that there was a vibrant and dedicated effort on the part of Saddam to develop, expand, and maintain a WMD arsenal including that of a nuclear nature. This is FACT. That was no lie. There are mountains of confirmed documentation from numerous credible sources that spell this out in great detail. It was the inaction of the Clinton administration that allowed Saddam to defy the world community without fear of reprisal and disguise his programs and even perhaps move his entire arsenal to where we haven't found it as of yet.

Now, on a personal level, I have seen first hand some of the lingering genetic damage that Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq has perpetuated ON HIS OWN PEOPLE! Granted, if you asked Saddam if the Kurds were his 'own people' he would disagree, but none the less, these weapons were used. Used once makes it easier to use again. He also was the first Arab leader to successfully attack Isreal with SCUD missiles -- keep that in mind. He had both means and opportunity to deliver chemical or dirty bomb payloads into Isreal, another factually documented intention and stated goal of the Saddam regeime. Incidentally, if he were successfull, this would be a feat that would have precipitated WWIII on a nuclear retaliation beyond imagination. I would certainly consider that a credible threat as we have treaty obligations for military support towards Isreal and many other of our allied coalition.

So yes you can argue that there are other 'bad guys' out there that through the application of simpleton logic should have been addressed other then Iraq, the FACT remains that in a threat assessment potential a chemical or other attack on Isreal, one of our staunchest allies, was not only possible, but probable, and that the fact that Saddam made numerous public statements delineating this goal, does indeed lead one to take that threat more seriously.

I still support the mission we undertook in Iraq and I always will. You can hate Pres. Bush as much as you want, however, the threat was there and he responded.

Clinton sat behind closed doors attracting favors when he could have dealt with this problem long before it esclated to the point where we are today. It is his administration that had actionable intelligence that would have ended the threat of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeda, and it was the Clinotn administration that sat by when they could have seen to the dismantling of the Saddam stockpile of confirmed WMDs. It was the weakness of his presidency that made us vulnerable to attack -- and that weakness was very effectivly exploited as we all know.

So perhaps we should change your saying to "Since Clinton got laid, the rest of us paid."

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:31 am
by Floyd Alvin

Bravo!!!! Bravo!!!!

I wish I had said that!! Thank you very much!

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:08 am
by Floyd Alvin
Oh sure ski, we all know there has been plenty of bumbling going on, and of course with the benefit of hindsight it is much easier to see it now.

But my contention is that way to many people want to see the bumbling only as in regards to the “other guy”. And of course the other guy right now is Bush. But that is way over simplifying the issue, not to mention the worst kind of partisan politics.

An objective view of the history of what lead us to Iraq would show plenty of bumbling by nearly every president since the victors of WWII carved out Israel. (In and of itself a really dumb idea.) Wars has been inevitable every since then.

This whole idea that there will ever be a negotiated peace is ridicules as long as you have millions of people committed not only to the eradication if Israel but the Jewish people themselves.

No one is ever going to change these people's mind. All we can do every once in a while is show them that there is more to lose then there is to gain if they continue to pursue their goals. Bush did that.

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:39 am
by ski_lover
Floyd and Medic, yep, yep and yep. I contend there's plenty of blame to go around, whether it's Bush, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan and on and on. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, I guess, although we never seem to learn from it. Does anyone remember the initial goal after 9/11? Wasn't it Osama Bin Laden ( I can spell that) and the Taliban? Here we over 7 years since going into Afghanistan and we don't seem to be any closer to finding him, not that taking him out will stop terrorism or "extremists" but I don't know what's going on behind the curtain.
Medic, don't think my wife and I don't understand, we have over 50 years of combined active duty service to our country with several tours in combat zones. We often meet and greet police escorted buses of soldiers returning to Fort Carson, this nation's finest, but it breaks my heart for the ones that came home via different transportation. Living on the bluffs overlooking "The Mountain Post" allows us the priviledge of hearing Taps every night (and Reveille every morning.) Our philosophies may be different but bottom line is we are all in this together. I can sleep at night but don't know how the politicians can. And that is all I have to say about that - Forrest Gump

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:55 am
by Floyd Alvin
I certainly agree with you on that ski.

You, me, Med and most of the others here may not be on the exact same line in the exact same paragraph but we are all on pretty much the same page.

It's the politicians that seem to be not only on a different page but not even in the same book, liberal, conservative, Democrats or Republicans.

Nice Forest Gump incidentally, pass me those chocolates will you? :lol:

Re: Obama-Bush Dem-Rep

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:19 pm
by Catfish
Wow, Medic you really hit nails on the head there. Apparently I was not seeing the forest for the trees. I stand, newly enlightened and thank you for letting me in on the real scenario. Only goes to show, you can learn something new everyday.
Your line that says, "while Clinton was getting laid, we all paid" cracks me up with reality. So for now, I'm onward through the fog. So I remain forever, that bottom feeding Catfish.