Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wrong. He has lambasted W for being a free and big spender pretty much since the first few months of this administration.

I've never seen him lambast that administration about spending. I've seen him criticize, but not lambast.

Still waitin' on that apology from Bill...

[Merf]

Originally posted by dissention
The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Merf
Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

Amen.

I find Shrub's god-speak quite comical. It's so ridiculous that it's funny.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I've never seen him lambast that administration about spending. I've seen him criticize, but not lambast.

Still waitin' on that apology from Bill...

I say analogies between W and Hitler are far fetched. Its all a personal opinion.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
Yeah, who is the BULLY now? Or should I say COWBOY??

People tend to forget that it's illegal to invade a country and overthrow a sovreign ruler. But I guess since God told Dubya to invade Iraq and get rid of all terrorists, than it's ok.

My prayer every night before bed? That Dubya goes the way of his father as another one-termer... and the world is free of another cowboy, I mean, BULLY.

Illegal? Where is that law posted? I submit no where. Conversely, the President of The U.S. has the legal authority to defend the U.S. and her allies from a security threat.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Hey, I never said obstruction was right; don't put words in my mouth. You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors.

The fact is that it is illegal to invade another country, seize their assets, and then sell them off to whoever we want. It is illegal.

What I am pointing out is that obstruction is wrong period. Yet, when it is asserted that W did it in the DUi matter it is as if the world should end - yet, Clinton did it on a much larger scale in the Whitewater/Lewinsky matter and it is all of a sudden, well he should not have been asked the question, etc. Where is the fairness in that? To me lying is lying and breaking the law is breaking the law - it does not matter who does it.

Also, regarding "You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. " - I was referring to your post I cited that said Clinton should never have been asked the question about Lewinsky, etc. If you believe that, then to me that is saying no boss should ever be asked about sexual indiscretions in the workplace because they are the boss' personal business. I am fairly certain, as I suggested earlier that you do not agree with that - but I could be wrong

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Mad4stevie
Am I the only one who is scared by this?!

I don't think I will ever "get" it!

Don't be scared...people can spin history any way they wnat to advance their theories...The Bush=Hitler thing is completely ridiculous and only seriously backed up by liberal blogs and web pages. "Bush Hate Syndrome" is very interesting. The “bashers” tend to believe any op-ed article written to back up their claims. You could play six degrees of separation with any political figure and find lies, special interest motivation, skeletons in the closet, etc.

And, I think talking about Clinton is very relevant when discussing the Bush Bashing that is going on. The reason is to find consistency with the arguments. To simply say “It doesn’t matter, he isn’t president” or, whatever, isn’t the point. The point is that the arguments and values that you hold to someone should be similar and consistent. How can you defend the lies of one president and then, demonize the next (actually, it was sort of humorous to see Liberal feminists defend Clinton after that whole escapade)?

If you disagree with Bush, that’s great. That’s what makes this country great. But if you actually “hate” the guy, your views and arguments can be clouded by that and they loose credibility to us moderates who try and look objectively at both sides. And the “hate” refers to Regan, Clinton, Carter, FDR, or whomever. As I said before, the extreme Right was guilty of this during the Clinton years.

Rob

[strandinthewind]

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners detained in the months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108113,00.html

Sad - very sad

But, I think the case with the American citizens being held as enemy combatants is still a go. Does anyone know about this case?

[Merf]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Illegal? Where is that law posted? I submit no where. Conversely, the President of The U.S. has the legal authority to defend the U.S. and her allies from a security threat.

The fact is that the United Nations would not support us in our witch hunt to overthrow Saddam... because they knew we had no legal basis to do so. I submit that I want to see the PROOF that the US was under a "security threat" from Iraq.

This can only happen if:

1) WMDs are found.
2) A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found.

Over two years since 9/11, and neither one of these has materialized. There are a lot of reasons why Dubya took our young men and women into Iraq, and none of those reasons include the ones I listed above. (Money, oil, money, oil, power, money, and oil are not good reasons.)

The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

By no means do I believe that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy and it's okay to be a ruthless dictator, but the fact is that it was not our place to move in and overthrow him. Because if our sole basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was because he was a dictator, then Dubya has a LONG list of dictators in this world he has yet to take care of.

I WANT TO SEE PROOF that our president did not lead us into this war on false pretenses!!!! I don't think that is too much to ask. Too many American soldiers have died since Dubya declared an end to "major combat" back in May. MAY 2003. IT IS NOW JANUARY 2004 and our soldiers are dying every day. It's time for this to be over!!!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Merf
The fact is that the United Nations would not support us in our witch hunt to overthrow Saddam... because they knew we had no legal basis to do so. I submit that I want to see the PROOF that the US was under a "security threat" from Iraq.

This can only happen if:

1) WMDs are found.
2) A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found.

Over two years since 9/11, and neither one of these has materialized. There are a lot of reasons why Dubya took our young men and women into Iraq, and none of those reasons include the ones I listed above. (Money, oil, money, oil, power, money, and oil are not good reasons.)

The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

By no means do I believe that Saddam Hussein is a nice guy and it's okay to be a ruthless dictator, but the fact is that it was not our place to move in and overthrow him. Because if our sole basis for overthrowing Saddam Hussein was because he was a dictator, then Dubya has a LONG list of dictators in this world he has yet to take care of.

I WANT TO SEE PROOF that our president did not lead us into this war on false pretenses!!!! I don't think that is too much to ask. Too many American soldiers have died since Dubya declared an end to "major combat" back in May. MAY 2003. IT IS NOW JANUARY 2004 and our soldiers are dying every day. It's time for this to be over!!!!

Your two positions are falese. WMD have been found buried in a marsh. Granted these were older weapons, but the fact that they were there (hell - we probably gave them to him ) and buried proves my point that SH was in violation of his agreement with the UN to account for and dispose of all WMD, which for about 11 years the UN unanimously agreed he had. Did he just forget about these 36 warheads that he buried to hide from detection? If anyone believes that, well I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale So, WMD have been found and who knows how many more are buried in the desert or shipped off to Syria or some other place.

Secondly, you argue "A solid tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is found." I assert no link is necessary. Moreover, I am unsure if W has ever made that exact assertion - I know his administration has denied the link between the two - but they certainly did not go out of their way to end it, which a bad thing to do. But, post 9/11 clearly created a world in which a person like SH that had WMD and had used them and had invaded neighboring countries in an attempt to conquer them could no longer be tolerated. So, I say America was justified in getting rid of SH and his 11 years of lies and the world's appeasment of him a la Hitler. Do I think the rest fo the world should have come along, yes. Do I think France, Russia, and Germany did not because they all had prior dealing with SH (some possibly illegal) and they all stood to lose billions by doing so - yes.

Interestingly, is no one but me willing to admit that this entire Iraq mess was caused by SH and his unwillingness for 11 years to comply with the unanimous world opinion via the UN? If not, I just do not see a valid contrary argument.

Also, I agree, I think the Iraqi intelligence should be made public.

[GardenStateGirlie]

Originally posted by Merf
The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

And I don't think we've forgotten about him. I think right now, attention in the MEDIA has been shifted to the war in Iraq. Who's to say that we've not been attempting to locate Osama Bin Laden and who's to say we don't have any leads on his whereabouts?

Finding Saddam was a shock to many people BECAUSE the media was not alerted and tipped off on the mission to extract him from his hole. We didn't see that one coming...and that's the way it should have been. No need to broadcast it to everyone so someone can let him know, hey, they're onto you! Get out! I don't feel we should be alerted on EVERY movement and EVERY tactic that will be taken in efforts to find Osama or any other threat for that matter.

That's the problem with this country. Do you honestly believe that leaders of OUR historical past didn't run the country the way Bush currently is? Do you think he's the first President to be a "bully?" The problem is that years ago, you NEVER saw it because it wasn't out there for everyone to see. Now, we've got live coverage from the battle grounds of Iraq, journalists hanging out in rooms of hotels that are about to be bombed so you can hear the silence and see shocking green lights from the bombs in the distance...etc

Media plays a part in shaping and forming opinions. If it's not out there for you to see, you don't believe it exists or that it's going on...that goes with EVERYTHING not just politics.

My .02 for the new year.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Sugar
If the Bush Administration admits to overstating the threat posed by Iraq to the US, do you have a problem with that?

Sure, but I agree with the foreign policy. Hopefully, the end with justify the means and a free and Democratic Iraq will have a profound effect on the Middle East. Hopefully, in the long run, it will bring about a greater peace and stability in the region. We’ve tried everything else and nothing has worked.

Not to keep harping back to Clinton (but it is relevant here), but I remember both Al Gore and him both referred to the WMD’s of Iraq as being a grave problem. WMD production was given as the excuse to fire rockets into Iraq in ’98, wasn’t it? It isn’t old news that we thought they were there.

Did the administration use this as the Ace in the hole for motivation? Maybe. Was it wrong if they did? Sure, and they should answer for it. But hopefully, as I said, the end justifies the means….

And Bush did say we would go after any nation that has supported or promotes terrorism as a means of political dialogue and Iraq has….

BTW…strandinthewind always backs up his position with facts AND logic. Much respect…even when we agree to disagree. Extremism from the left or the right doesn’t impress me.

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Also, regarding "You already did that by saying that I supported women sleeping their way up the corporate ladder and men using their superiority for sexual favors. " - I was referring to your post I cited that said Clinton should never have been asked the question about Lewinsky, etc. If you believe that, then to me that is saying no boss should ever be asked about sexual indiscretions in the workplace because they are the boss' personal business. I am fairly certain, as I suggested earlier that you do not agree with that - but I could be wrong

I think you interpreted that post the way you wanted to interpret it.

I said that I didn't believe that Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions. I believe that it is not right for Clinton's private sexual indiscretions to be made public in the way that they were. It was a right wing conspiracy designed to attack Clinton, nothing more, nothing less.

[dissention]

Originally posted by Merf
The REAL person who we should be afraid of? OSAMA BIN LADEN. Where the hell is he? The fact is that the real security threat has been forgotten about while we've been too busy in Iraq.

We had him cornered in a cave, but came back to the press with our tails between our legs because we managed to lose him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
I think you interpreted that post the way you wanted to interpret it.

I said that I didn't believe that Ken Starr should have been given the power to ask those questions. I believe that it is not right for Clinton's private sexual indiscretions to be made public in the way that they were. It was a right wing conspiracy designed to attack Clinton, nothing more, nothing less.

No - Congress gave Ken Starr the right to ask that question. So, he was completely proper to do so. Moreover, Bill Clinton set it up so it was proper to do so. If Clinton had not lied in the first place, then Starr probably could not have asked about subsequent sexual indiscretions. But, Clinton, like every other male on the planet , lied about other women. So, Clinton put it at issue.