Let's impeach the president.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ill tell you what. if its that easy, ill send my tax cut money back, if bush brings the troops home. i cant understand why he cant hear the american people calling for the end. he is supposed to be the voice of his people, right?

The people are wrong. You don't back out now.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ill tell you what. if its that easy, ill send my tax cut money back, if bush brings the troops home. i cant understand why he cant hear the american people calling for the end. he is supposed to be the voice of his people, right?

What could be easier? Do you think the IRS will return your money? They don't care if you overpay.

[jamf]

This thread reminds me of:

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

The people are wrong. You don't back out now.

so, you're right, and 80% of America is wrong?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by jsarno

SO sn. Bush was wrong for backing out, yet GW gets blasted for not backing out?????? Do dems even have a clue what they really want?

(I'm not deflecting the blame, I say Clinton sucked, and Bush had to clean up the mess...that's not deflection, that's Bush stepping up to the plate.)

taking us into Iraq, when the united states had no business being there. whose mess is he cleaning up? maybe his old mans. for some strange reason, this president really doesn't understand the meaning of politics. so now we have a mess in Iran. oh, what to do? who can we blame this on? i sure for some stupid reason, that this, and any other problem, is Bill Clinton's fault. because he surely is the root of all evil. and the republicans still haven't been able to accept the fact that even they are wrong every once in a while

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by dmek25

taking us into Iraq, when the united states had no business being there. whose mess is he cleaning up? maybe his old mans. for some strange reason, this president really doesn't understand the meaning of politics. so now we have a mess in Iran. oh, what to do? who can we blame this on? i sure for some stupid reason, that this, and any other problem, is Bill Clinton's fault. because he surely is the root of all evil. and the republicans still haven't been able to accept the fact that even they are wrong every once in a while

Ours because we put that evil dictating SOB in power! As a matter of fact Jimmy Carter (A Democrat) was the President in office at the time. So we have been trying to clean up his mess for three decades!

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by jsarno

SO sn. Bush was wrong for backing out, yet GW gets blasted for not backing out?????? Do dems even have a clue what they really want?

(I'm not deflecting the blame, I say Clinton sucked, and Bush had to clean up the mess...that's not deflection, that's Bush stepping up to the plate.)

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

First of all you have no way of proving that they are liars. Well maybe Cheney, but I believe that Bush might have been mislead just as our Secretary of State was at the time. Once again you cannot change the past, but you can still impact the future. What good other than shutting up the American People does pulling out of Iraq right now provide? Absolutely none.

By the way, the War is called Operation Iraqi Freedom. I want you to think about that for a couple of seconds.



Now, does it say anything about fighting terrorists in the name? No, it doesnt. The only thing that you can gather from the title is the liberation of Iraqi people. Liberating them from an Asshole that we gave the power to overthrow another asshole 28 years ago. It had to be done sooner or later.

One more thing. If Sadam wasn't hiding WMD's, then why was I over there during Clinton's term as well? Because of his refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors. No wait a minuite,thats right, the President was trying to take the country's mind off of the fact that he was getting BJ's from Monica!

There were and are WMD's. They may have been moved (maybe to another country, hmmm Iran is awfully suspecious), or they are still hidden, but they exist. What in the hell do you think that they launched into Israel in 91? Confetti!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse1

No reputable historian blames Clinton for causing the mess that led to 911. Most hold that American foreign policy since the end of the cold war fueled it (through many presidencies). It's not helpful to oversimplify, childish even, and reflective of an emotional need to distort. The metaphor of Bush stepping up to the place is also of such making. Bush might be said that Bush stepped up to the plate in regard to Afghanistan and Osama at first is appropriate, but to let the methaphor also seemingly apply to the attack on Iraq is a ludicrous disservice to the truth. You apparently actually believe that Iraq aided in the 911 attack and/or had terrorists conducting anti-American activities, as well-- even thought absolutely neither of the above has ever been shown to be even remotely true.
Try to let this sink in. Bush and Chaney are liars and deliberately mislead the public and Congress in relation to WMD's and Iraq's involvement in 911.
There's already half a library on the subject, as well as numerous witnesses. That is the way reputable scholars and historians see the matter now, and that is the way they'll see it in the future.

I love the "Bush lied" crowd. When did he lie? Did he get everyone else to lie too? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of decision makers both Rep and Dem agreed. There is a gigantic difference between being wrong and lying. Mistaking one for the other is a "disservice" to the truth. As long as the extremists keep yelling about Bush lying they won't get traction in this country. The American people don't care whether he lied or not. They care about how it is going and what the plan is from here. That is where the politcal traction lays and no one seems to want to take a ride on it.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by dmek25

oh, how easy it is to deflect the blame. is that also like saying if senior Bush would have finished what he started in Iraq, 3000 American soldiers would still be alive? and correct me if im wrong, but during Bill Clintons tenure, the republicans controlled congress. they could have done pretty much what they wanted. how is that , tit for tat?

Yes, Congress is the only branch of Government that can declare war, however Clinton was still the Commander In Chief.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ill tell you what. if its that easy, ill send my tax cut money back, if bush brings the troops home. i cant understand why he cant hear the american people calling for the end. he is supposed to be the voice of his people, right?

Yes it is sad that Americans are dying. We all want the rest of our boys home. But how are their lives any more significant than the lives of the natives of that country that do need our help and actually have more freedom now because we are there. Freedom isn't free you know.

It was wrong to pull out of Vietnam, when the complaints of the people forced the hand of the President. It would be wrong to pull out of Iraq now. As badly as we want it, for our own selfish reasons it is not the right thing to do.

History lesson. The North Vietnamese were never able to effectivly penetrate and push our forces back. It wasnt until our withdrawl that they were able move into the south. The fall of Saigon did not occour until the last US Soldiers left.

So should we withdrawl from Iraq now and leave the people in the hands of a dim fate, or do like we did in Nazi Germany and help them rebuild and establish a stable form of less corrupt Government?

[Crazyhorse1]

Originally Posted by angryssg

Yes it is sad that Americans are dying. We all want the rest of our boys home. But how are their lives any more significant than the lives of the natives of that country that do need our help and actually have more freedom now because we are there. Freedom isn't free you know.

It was wrong to pull out of Vietnam, when the complaints of the people forced the hand of the President. It would be wrong to pull out of Iraq now. As badly as we want it, for our own selfish reasons it is not the right thing to do.

History lesson. The North Vietnamese were never able to effectivly penetrate and push our forces back. It wasnt until our withdrawl that they were able move into the south. The fall of Saigon did not occour until the last US Soldiers left.

So should we withdrawl from Iraq now and leave the people in the hands of a dim fate, or do like we did in Nazi Germany and help them rebuild and establish a stable form of less corrupt Government?

We are the dim fate the people of Iraq have been are subjected to. We've killed over 200,000 of them just in the last few years, as well as tortured
approximately 50,000 non-terrorists just to be on the safe side. We've also established what were built to be permanent bases in Iraq and plotted to use its oil to pay for the war and stake a permanent claim on Iraqi resourses. We attacked Iraq for money and to get a foothold in the middle east in a neo-con effort to increase American hegemony, just as we did in Nam.
Try dealing with the bitter and increasingly obvious truth (as the evidence stacks up) that our leaders have never cared zip about Iraqis. Try to be as smart as a typical Iraqi ten year old and the rest of the civilized world, which now regards us as world threat No. 1. We have been bamboozled by our leadership, which has made repeated attacks on our own Constitution and Bill of Rights and tried to establish an executive branch that is beyond the law.
The current administration believes neither in Iraqi freedom or American freedom. Until you understand that, you are living in a state of delusion and have no real chance of saying anything meaningful about our current situation. The war in Iraq is terribly serious, but it is relatively meaningless in relation to what Bush and his administration has done and is still in the process of doing to our country.

[KLHJ2]

[quote=Crazyhorse1;322239]We are the dim fate the people of Iraq have been are subjected to. False, we are protecting them from each other.
We've also established what were built to be permanent bases in Iraq and plotted to use its oil to pay for the war. True

and stake a permanent claim on Iraqi resourses. False (your opinion)
We attacked Iraq to get a foothold in the middle east True
.
Try dealing with the bitter and increasingly obvious truth (as the evidence stacks up) that our leaders have never cared zip about Iraqis. False, our leaders over there care.

Try to be as smart as a typical Iraqi ten year old Ouch, not fair!
and the rest of the civilized world, which now regards us as world threat No. 1. So why does UN always use more US troops than anyone elses for peace keeping missions?

The current administration believes neither in Iraqi freedom or American freedom. Until you understand that, you are living in a state of delusion and have no real chance of saying anything meaningful about our current situation. Yor opinion once again, try pointing out a little bit of fact to support it next time.quote]

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I love the "Bush lied" crowd. When did he lie? Did he get everyone else to lie too? Because it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of decision makers both Rep and Dem agreed. There is a gigantic difference between being wrong and lying. Mistaking one for the other is a "disservice" to the truth. As long as the extremists keep yelling about Bush lying they won't get traction in this country. The American people don't care whether he lied or not. They care about how it is going and what the plan is from here. That is where the politcal traction lays and no one seems to want to take a ride on it.

Actually, Obama never agreed

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by jdlea

Actually, Obama never agreed

Well we have something we can agree upon and if I'm correct he is the only person running for office that voted against the war.