Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Banned weapons is a horrible reason to go to war. In that case, we should have hit North Korea, Iran...twice, China too. But hey, maybe spending billions on this war is what's good for Americans...don't you feel safer with Saddam gone?
Again, what if Bush did nothing and one of those banned weapons (of which some could kill thousands) was used in England or the U.S. or Canada? Everyone would have blamed Bush for not doing something about Saddam. He can't win... he does something, he is criticized; if he didn't, he would still be criticized.
And each country should be dealt with according to their government. What applies to one (like Iraq) doesn't necessarily apply to another.
Quote:
Israel did it the best, they struck Iraq's reactor from the air and didn't occupy
Again, what if Bush did nothing and one of those banned weapons (of which some could kill thousands) was used in England or the U.S. or Canada? Everyone would have blamed Bush for not doing something about Saddam. He can't win... he does something, he is criticized; if he didn't, he would still be criticized.
And each country should be dealt with according to their government. What applies to one (like Iraq) doesn't necessarily apply to another.
Can't wipe out terrorists with just air attacks.
But you see how people aren't nearly as upset about Afghanistan than they are Iraq? As I stated earlier, if you're going to go to war for banned weapons then why start with Iraq of all places? North Korea was working on a nuke, we KNEW this, and they proved it but what do they get? A good 'talking to' (which is actually turning more results than invading Iraq ever did or could).
Invading Iraq the way we did IMO was much too rash.
Countries may be dealt with according to their government, but Iraq, North Korea, Iran were all part of the same 'axis of evil'. I think we tried to go after what we thought would be the 'easy' one
ps: cant wipe out terrorists by invading countries either
Again, lower than the average during the '70s, '80s and '90s.
Agreed. W was handed a better start-point than any President in those decades, has not had to deal with any oil embargos, and has not yet managed to bring about any depressions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Lol.
Agreed again. Your original claim of 50 months of job growth was laughable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
As you said, depending on the starting date. But better than when Bush took office.
Actually, in the 6½ years prior to Bush's taking office, GDP grew at an annual rate of about 3.20%. Most analysts would describe that as better than the 2.55% that has prevailed in the 6½ years since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
And what does that have to do with what was passed in the '90s?
The fiscal responsibility provisions of the Contract with America were never enacted. The Welfare Reform Act had negligible budgetary effect during the 1990's as it did not operate at all prior to FY97 and its major financial effects were backloaded by five years.
The balanced budgets that were ultimately achieved in the late 1990's were the result of years of difficult work carried out for the most part on a bipartisan basis in reaction to massive fiscal imbalances rung up by the Reagan and Bush-1 administrations. That work was one part of a long-term effort that let President Clinton bequeath to his successor a federal government that was in the best financial health of any in at least 50 years. It didn't take W long to make a mess of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Obviously, you haven't heard on tape Clinton saying that he did not take Bin Laden into custody because "He had broken no U.S. laws." Which is wrong since he was behind several terrorist bombings when Clinton said that.
Of course I've heard it. And I've heard Sean Hannity's deliberate mischaracterization of it as well. Further, the events themselves occurred in the Spring of 1996, while Clinton spoke about them to the Long Island Association in February 2002. Conflate 2002 with 1996? What else would you care so blatantly to attempt to distort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
The 9/11 commission has flaws and more evidence has surfaced since that report was released.
From NewsMax perhaps??? But your low standards in this area notwithstanding, do feel free to clue us in as to any pertinent new evidence that you feel is credible...
The Supreme Court put an end to the ridiculous hand counting and recounting of the ballots. The voters did put Bush in office- he got more electoral votes than Gore.
There is no federal issue. Election procedures are a matter of state law. Recounts and hand counts were then and are now mandated by state laws all across the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Not illegal. Congress approved invading Ahghanistan and Iraq. And the 1991 Cease Fire agreement with Iraq gave the U.S. legal authority to resume military action with Iraq if the agreement was broken, which it was.
Afghanistan, yes. Iraq only after certain conditions were met which were not. The 1991 Cease Fire was via UN Security Council Resolution 687, the final provision of which declares that the Security Council itself remains 'seized of the matter'. No on-going right or authority to unilateral action on the part of the United States is either declared or suggested.
I have commisioned a sculptor to create a garden piece for me. It will be eight feet tall and depicts Bush spanking a terrorist. The American flag flys over his right shoulder. A second statue will depict Nanci Pelosi feeding a surrender monkey while Harry Reid passes out the communist manifesto to munchkins. The first one will cost a lot of money but he has agreed to do the second one for free so I just may go for the second one. Donations anyone?
I have commisioned a sculptor to create a garden piece for me. It will be eight feet tall and depicts Bush spanking a terrorist. The American flag flys over his right shoulder. A second statue will depict Nanci Pelosi feeding a surrender monkey while Harry Reid passes out the communist manifesto to munchkins. The first one will cost a lot of money but he has agreed to do the second one for free so I just may go for the second one. Donations anyone?
it's ironic that those terrorists were called freedom fighters and were provide financial support and more a few years ago!
Right, let's not mention it. Unemployment in the 4% bracket- lower than the average unemployment rate during the '70s, '80s and '90s. 50 months of job growth. A GDP growing at an average of 2.9%. You're right- the economy shouldn't be mentioned be it make the Democrats uncomfortable!
Yeah, a debt-free governemnt which began when the Republicans won control of Congress in the '94 elections and when bills like the Contract with America and the Welfare Reform bills passed.
Clinton allowed terrorism to flouish during his terms and even had several opportunities to either take Bin Laden into custody or kill him. What a "President!"
Pardon me, but I am stating fact. Do you know how bankrupcies are growing? You must realize that the 'unemployment rate' does not include those who have just given up, or are in the growing underground economy or those who must take two low paying jobs to compensate for the one they were downsized out of.
Clinton actually cut the size of government, which is something the Reps had been promising all along but never delivered. He halved the welfare roles, much to the chagrin of many in his own party, but for the good of the country as a whole.
You sound as though you might be confused in your comments. Try to wean yourself off the right wing media, why don't you?
And to think it all started when Jimmy Carter kowtowed to the mullahs, and opened the doors to their temerity and provided a model for our timidity.
Mr. Peanut and his defenders ought to apologize for being alive.
I think it started when Ray-gun started funding and arming Ossama and training the Mullahs to fend off the Soviets.
I believe we may have had some foriegn policy advisors at the time who were consistant, regardless of the Presidency. The unelected government. While we are fighting about Dems and Reps, the unelected policy guys obviously work on, undeterred.
You are right. You might be lucky if Israel bombed Iran. The US should, ideally, have nothing much to do with the mid-East. We should just pull out or the entire region and let them duke it out amongst themselves.
The only way that we could do that is to become independent of foriegn oil, because that is the only reason I can see to keep us there.
So, if we do make good headroads against global warming you might get your wish and we'll leave Israel alone to duke it out with her Arab neighbors by herself.
Jews and Arabs had lived together peacefully for a long, long time and without our outside interference, they might be able to do that again.
Like two dogs fighting in the same home, sometimes you just have to let them settle it amongst themselves.
The Supreme Court put an end to the ridiculous hand counting and recounting of the ballots. The voters did put Bush in office- he got more electoral votes than Gore.
Not illegal. Congress approved invading Ahghanistan and Iraq. And the 1991 Cease Fire agreement with Iraq gave the U.S. legal authority to resume military action with Iraq if the agreement was broken, which it was.
Are you serious?
Electorial votes do not count. Well neither does our vote. bush (intentionally not capitalized due to zero respect) lost the popular vote. He may have lost by much more if that woman in Florida was not allowed to take home gigantic boxes of ballads to count herself. She was a bush fan. Boy if that ain't the Fox guarding the Hen House.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
