Bush, Iraq War, Oil, Vietnam, Khorum and Torture

[Soriak]

Because Bill Clinton was a horrible President?

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Because Bill Clinton was a horrible President?

Yes. He was a liar and disrespected the Presidency. He benefited from a up economic cycle.

By the way I think his wife is running not him. Of course I could be incorrect. I don't think he will settle for just being the First Lady.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

Yes. He was a liar and disrespected the Presidency.

He got a blowjob - not a moral outcry for anyone but the extremely religious, who aren't Democrats anyway. True, he cheated on his spouse, but that also is a daily occurrence. The only difference is that all those other adulterers don't have to testify about it under oath. I find the outrage about his actions extremely fake, given how common it is nowadays. (or always has been, really.)

I'm sure some of his policy was flawed, much of it was good... his economic policy did reinforce the boom and wasn't pushed through without fighting the Republicans - especially his reduction of the budget deficit. Just imagine if the Bush presidency had started with more debt - you'd be pushing the $10 trillion cap already.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

Yes. He was a liar and disrespected the Presidency. He benefited from a up economic cycle.

Unlike the current president who never lied, and who didn't benefit from a horrific terrorist attack to hide his glaring incompetence....

Now of course lying about that blowjob was wrong, but so was the republican witchhunt that lead to it. It cost the american taxpayers $60 million to prove he boinked his intern. If anyone disrespected the presidency it was the GOP zealots who forced the commander in chief to deal with that sideshow rather than running the country.

[Regime]

Originally Posted by I'm Rich Bitch

Yes. He was a liar and disrespected the Presidency. He benefited from a up economic cycle.

By the way I think his wife is running not him. Of course I could be incorrect. I don't think he will settle for just being the First Lady.

w t f

[I'm Rich Bitch]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Unlike the current president who never lied, and who didn't benefit from a horrific terrorist attack to hide his glaring incompetence....

Now of course lying about that blowjob was wrong, but so was the republican witchhunt that lead to it. It cost the american taxpayers $60 million to prove he boinked his intern. If anyone disrespected the presidency it was the GOP zealots who forced the commander in chief to deal with that sideshow rather than running the country.

We are in agreement on Bush, however I would be willing to bet that the Clintons performed many more serious malfeasants that were never caught including those associated with Whitewater.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Unlike the current president who never lied, and who didn't benefit from a horrific terrorist attack to hide his glaring incompetence....

Now of course lying about that blowjob was wrong, but so was the republican witchhunt that lead to it. It cost the american taxpayers $60 million to prove he boinked his intern. If anyone disrespected the presidency it was the GOP zealots who forced the commander in chief to deal with that sideshow rather than running the country.

So when Clinton attacked Iraq becuase his intel said Saddam had WMDs and all the democrats agreed. who was lying then?

[Arbitrary]

Clinton just sent cruise missiles and was strongly criticized for even that level of force.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Clinton just sent cruise missiles and was strongly criticized for even that level of force.

Lol just cruise missiles? if another country "just sent cruise missiles" to targets inside the US what would you categorize that as? nothing serious?

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

Lol just cruise missiles? if another country "just sent cruise missiles" to targets inside the US what would you categorize that as? nothing serious?

I'm not sure what you have inferred in my post exactly.

[Zhaun's_Shade]

"Clinton just sent cruise missiles" vs. "Bush sending 100's of thousands of troops, lots of tanks, ships, aircraft and a shitload more cruise missiles"

I think "just" cruise missiles is pretty accurate.

[Astrocreep]

a ground attack is no different than an air attack becuase its still an attack. you cant play down one because the other cost more lives/money. the point is the old Bush Lied line is rubbish, slick willie did the same damn thing as Bush with the same damn intel just a few years earlier and yet Bush is the liar? lol

[Zhaun's_Shade]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

a ground attack is no different than an air attack becuase its still an attack. you cant play down one because the other cost more lives/money. the point is the old Bush Lied line is rubbish, slick willie did the same damn thing as Bush with the same damn intel just a few years earlier and yet Bush is the liar? lol

Wow.

Clinton had intel the Iraqis had WMDs, he sent a few cruise missiles.

Bush had intel the Iraqis had no WMDs, and lied to us and brought us into a war and occupation that has already lasted years and will in all likelyhood last for many more years, cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

Even if we ignore the first part of each of those statements and assume they either both lied or neither lied, if you can't see the difference between the second part you're a goddamned fucktard.

[Astrocreep]

Originally Posted by Zhaun's_Shade

Wow.

Clinton had intel the Iraqis had WMDs, he sent a few cruise missiles.

Bush had intel the Iraqis had no WMDs, and lied to us and brought us into a war and occupation that has already lasted years and will in all likelyhood last for many more years, cost hundreds of thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars.

Even if we ignore the first part of each of those statements and assume they either both lied or neither lied, if you can't see the difference between the second part you're a goddamned fucktard.

the lives/money is irrelevant. when committing a willful act of war based on intel that later turns out to be false you cant call one a liar and one less of a liar. you got my point. either both lied about the same thing both used that lie to launch an attack or neither lied and both attacked Iraq based on the intel they were given. If you wanna call anyone a damn liar, should be calling out George Tenet for his fucked up intel, but heh he gets the Medal Of Freedom.

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Astrocreep

the lives/money is irrelevant. when committing a willful act of war based on intel that later turns out to be false you cant call one a liar and one less of a liar. you got my point. either both lied about the same thing both used that lie to launch an attack or neither lied and both attacked Iraq based on the intel they were given. If you wanna call anyone a damn liar, should be calling out George Tenet for his fucked up intel, but heh he gets the Medal Of Freedom.

Which of course doesn't answer the question of whether the possession of WMD - regardless of what your Intel says - is a reason for starting a war and invading a country in the first place, and if that is so why the U.S. hasn't followed up on that when deasling with North Korea, South Afrika, Pakistan, Israel, Germany and a few other obvious countries possessing WMD in violation of international treaties?

Clinton didn't justify his actions with WMD, that's the hairbrain child of the Bush Admin...