Political Discussion

[onlineuse]

"This country will never be the same since Bush gave the okay almost 5 years ago."

Bush did not give the okay. A majority of senators and congressmen, democrats and republicans gave the President the okay. A majority of democrats and a majority of republicans....

This is the problem with this era, everyone wants to blame and half the time they run around half-cocked blaming people without fact or historical reference. This was a mistake by everyone even those that voted against it because instead of continuing the fight after losing they went back to their ferocious 2 day work weeks while our soldiers were getting killed.

It took just as long 10 years ago under Clinton to get SSD approved. We had no wars at that time. Nothing has changed, better or worse.

[lilgoose]

War was not started because it was voted on and then the troops just hopped on the plan and went out with guns loaded.....Some one, namely the Commander In Chief, was the one who HAD to give the "go ahead" and NO this country has NOT been the same.....

Regarding Social Security......I just KNEW someone would have to miss the whole point of my sharing something rather personal. The POINT was that there are problems in THIS country that needs to be addressed and instead of addressing our problems, they are getting worse.

Actually, why are you on this forum? You sound as though you are bitter and have some resentment at those who do not share your OPINION.

Well, if you feel that there are people running around half-cocked and blaming without the facts, then please do fill us in on those facts as President Bush can not seem to keep his stories straight.

[Spartan]

I think supporting your husband, and troops in Iraq is the right thing to do. I'm myself an ex-Paratrooper, and Ranger. Last I read, the Bush adminstration plans on sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq!!

What makes me digusted over the war, is the sheer lack of quality, and ongoing post-war support that the goverment is investing on its war vets!! The lack of ongoing, medical, financial, etc care that the vets recieve she be criminal, because it's simply inadequate!

How much is the lack of help the result of the vets not knowing where to get help?

I know of vets who are getting their houses and cars paid for every month, full free medical care, clothing allowance, money to remodel their houses. And a monthly payment of $3000. And these are vets who have never even seen combat. REMF. Enlisted, not even officers. They are on disabilities and seem like they are being cared for 100% and more.

Granted, every case is different. But I seriously doubt that the vets are all screwed as you painted.

I really don't know what is going on. I see lots of people having a fat and easy retirement...all b/c they wore the uniform once.

Is it possible those who are getting the short end, just do not know where to get help? Afterall, we are talking about government bureaucracy here.

[Spartan]

War was not started because it was voted on and then the troops just hopped on the plan and went out with guns loaded.....Some one, namely the Commander In Chief, was the one who HAD to give the "go ahead" and NO this country has NOT been the same.....

Regarding Social Security......I just KNEW someone would have to miss the whole point of my sharing something rather personal. The POINT was that there are problems in THIS country that needs to be addressed and instead of addressing our problems, they are getting worse.

Actually, why are you on this forum? You sound as though you are bitter and have some resentment at those who do not share your OPINION.

Well, if you feel that there are people running around half-cocked and blaming without the facts, then please do fill us in on those facts as President Bush can not seem to keep his stories straight.

Take it easy there. Just because you hate Bush doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the facts and truth. You are simply repeating what you read in the newspaper, and much of that are just anti Bush, and anti GOP, hate crap from the Democrat dominated left wing liberal media.

Congress did vote to go to war. Even Kerry voted to go to war....

Whatever long term problems the country is facing, are not Bush's fault. He inherited those. Bill Clinton had 8 years to solve all those problems and what exactly had he done?

It is easy to dump everything onto Bush, just because you don't like him.

Bush has the facts correct. It is you who don't know the whole picture. The WMD thing is such a laughter whipping boy. Saddam had the resources, materials, access, means and motives to reconstitute WMD and would have no qualm about using them. Had we not deposed him, we might be living with constant fear that Saddam are now conspiring with Al Qaeda to explode WMD weapons in downtown Manhattan, Seattle, San Diego, LA, Tampa, Louisiana. Saddam was on tape recorded discussion with his deputies of carrying out chemical attacks inside the US. Saddam had already invited Al Zaqawi to open offices in Iraq and arranged meeting between Al Zaqawi and his biological weapon experts, aka Dr. Germ and Dr. Anthrax.

Putin personally provided the USA with intelligence from his agents that Saddam was onto WMD. Chirac shared the intelligence from his own spies too. In fact Chirac offered to lead the attack on Iraq. But he wanted French troops to have sole control Baghdad. Only after US told him NO, then he decided that invading Iraq was a bad thing afterall.

The armchair quarterbacking is ridiculuous.

Had we invaded Afghanistan in 2000, killed Osama, and wiped out his murderous bastards. I bet you would be here bellyaching about the US invading Afghanistan, killing terrorists for absolutely no reason what so ever. And that such invasion was soooooo illegal and criminal. blahblahblah... I bet you would be bellyaching about "where is the evidence that they are going to pull 911?" and that Bush couldn't get his stories straight, blahblahblahblah.

Sometimes, we have to act, and the consequence is that, we prevent calamities from happening. And because of that, the armchair quarterbacks have a field day talking trash. It is easy to talk trash when your ass don't have to cash it. It makes you feel good about yourself. That's about it.

Wars are hell. Great men and women make the ultimate sacrifice, at the front and at home. We can never repay the debt we owe to these brave souls. We can only honour them, by carrying on their unfinished duties and defeating the enemies once and for all. Make no mistakes, the enemies are not giving up. They are on a deluded mission from their god. These people have to be hunted down and killed off. With these, there are no compromise. If we don't kill them in their parts of the world, they will be killing us in our own backyard. If 911 is not enough to wake people up.. if Madrid Spain is not enough to wake people up... if London bombing is not enough to wake people up, then there will be more 911, more London bombing and more Madrid... Except that it will happen here in the malls you shop at, the office buildings you work at, the subway stations you ride at, the football games your families go to.

You should be on your knees thanking the good lord that the administration has been working its butts off, such that there hasn't been another 911 since. It didn't happen by accident. You should be on your knees thanking the good lord that America elected Bush/Cheney instead of Gore and Kerry!


Bush will go down history as one of the greatest leaders and the greatest presidents. He will be known as the first president to recognize the threat of the Islamo facist terrorism and fight it with no delusion.

The anti bush democrates are hell bent on losing this war and hell bent on losing it the worst way. That is simply treason.

[Spartan]

People bought into the left wing anti Amerian European propaganda. They made it sound like Iraq is the perfect training ground for Al Qaeda. What they either fail to realise or simply refuse to admit, is that Iraq has been a black hole for Al Qaeda. It has sucked in untold numbers of Islamo facist terrorists, only to be killed and captured. Iraq becomes the dumping ground for all the domestic terrorists from the Middle Eastern countries. Those countries have been so happy to have their terrorist wannabes to go to Iraq and get killed or captured.

In fact, Iraq has been such a disaster that Al Qaeda has quitely shifted its resources and manpower OUT of Iraq and into the frontier territories in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

Yes, we lost men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the price we pay. The alternative is to hide at home, waiting for more 911's, more London bombing, and more Madrid train bombing.....

We must not let our warriors' death be in vain. The enemies will not rest. Victory or death.

If we don't hunt them down and kill them off, they will be here killing our families at the malls, at the transit station, at the football games......

[Spartan]

John Kerry's own words...

"... Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past. ..."


"...According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year...."


"...That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right..."


I bet Kerry has conveniently forgotten all those words now......

[Spartan]

Lies and damn lies.... And who can't get their stories straight...

"....."[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others


"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002


"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998


"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998


"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002


"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002


"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003


"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998


"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002


"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002


"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002


"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002 "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

[Spartan]

but who cares? It is all Bush's fault!!!

[Spartan]

Democrats urging Clinton to attack Iraq in 1998

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924722/posts

Also...

"..."One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



[B]"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. [/B]


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

[Spartan]

"...Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton: "The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."...

[Spartan]

From an interview after he [Clinton] left office on Larry King Live, July 22, 2003:[14]

"Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for [in Iraq]. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."



[edit] Madeline Albright, Secretary of State
On February 18, 1998, Secretary of State Madeline Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at a televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University, where she said:[15]

At one point, she was asked why the United States should oppose the Saddam regime's possession of nuclear weapons when other nations had them. Her response:

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them. [...] Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."
"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said later at that meeting.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Albright said.[1]


Other Albright quotes about Iraq:

"As we made very clear this week, we will take unilateral action when we feel our national interests have been threatened." -- August 23, 1998[16]


"Saddam was not just another dictator. He had invaded both Iran and Kuwait, and yearned to develop a nuclear bomb to impress an Arab world that despised him." -- From Madam Secretary[16]


"It seemed to me obvious that, under the circumstances, it would have been immoral not to confront Saddam Hussein." -- From Madam Secretary[16]


"Wanting to shield Iraqi's from suffering, they [protesters] thought the way to do that was to oppose us. But most hadn't seen the video footage of Saddam's attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1998, where five thousand died...they accused us of not caring but seemed to have no conception of the suffering that appeasing a ruthless dictator might cause." -- From Madam Secretary[16]


"The world has not seen, except maybe Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. If you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started to far, then he could do untold damage." -- February 19, 1997[16]



[edit] Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser
At the same public meeting on February 18 that Albright (see above) spoke, Sandy Berger was applauded when he "insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites," according to one newspaper report.[17] Berger also said:

"The only answer to aggression and outlaw behaviour is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."[17]


Berger was quoted slightly differently elsewhere: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -- February 18, 1998[1]



[edit] U.S. Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
"I support President Clinton's decision to undertake military operations against Iraq. President Clinton had no alternative because Saddam Hussein has left the world no alternative." -- December 17, 1998[2]


On October 6, 1998, Levin, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a committee hearing that he and other senators were signing a letter to President Clinton on the subject of the threat from Saddam:[9]

"As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.
"And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat."



[edit] Al Gore, vice president, 2000 presidential nominee
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- September 23, 2002[19]
In the same speech, he said:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."[19] Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary." I get frustrated when everyone on all of this is trying to infuse political motive into these decisions. I mean, let's get serious. We are not playing games here. This is life and death." -- responding on CNN to criticism from fellow Democrats October 4, 2002[2]

"I didn't take Bush's word for whether or not they had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I went to the CIA. I sat down across from George Tenet. I said, 'George, I have to vote, you don't. Are you worried that they have weapons or the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons?' He said 'yes' emphatically. I got the same thing from high officials in the Clinton administration who had worked in the security area." - -- November 17, 2003[2]

[Spartan]

but who cares about some inconvenient truth? It is all Bush's fault anyway!

[onlineuse]

Spartan in the interest of full disclosure which so few seem to do during these discussions (you did and I appreciate that), I am not really a Bush supporter. In fact I've vowed to never vote for another republican after what they did with the Bankrutpcy Legislation last year and this was 8 months before we were even close to being "in trouble". With that said, the blatant, "Bush is lying, everything is his fault" routine grows old. Bush is no longer "in power" so to speak, in case everyone missed the major news stories of November the democrats now control both aisles but my guess is in about 3 months nothing will have changed because they are all smoke and mirrors on both sides. Money talks, and money gets them elected.

Berger stole classified documents - a federal offense - presumably to give the perception by removing documents unfriendly to President Clinton that they acted in a way that was "better" than Bush. The fact is they both blew it (both Presidents) on 9/11, they both blew the intelligence on Iraq etc.

Lilgoose when you run around stating that the President can't keep his stories straight you are making a statement of fact, not opinion. When you blame 9/11 and subsequently the President for "This country will never be the same since Bush gave the okay almost 5 years ago." you ignored the fact that democrats also signed off on the war - a vast majority. Regarding your SSD comments, we just shipped billions into New Orleans to "help" our own people - how did that work out? Anything the government has it's hands it that involves large sums of money will become a corrupt mess.

You make it sound as if all those democratic senators had no choice. They did, and if they had voted a different way we would not be in Iraq right now - period. They decided to vote to support the war based on all the information they could gather INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY. A good politician does his/her own research and many of them did and came to the same conclusion - just look at the quotes posted here.

I get very tired of people with axes to grind against the President blaming the ills of the world on him. He's made a lot of mistakes, I think the economy stinks and has terrible foundations, I think under his regime an atmosphere is in place that allowed massive gouging at the pumps, but I challenge you now specifically to tell us how the Presidents actions since 9/11 have taken us down a road where "This country will never be the same since Bush gave the okay almost 5 years ago." If you think one man has that much power?

[Spartan]

I am a Bush supporter, but that does not change what the facts are. Just b/c I support him, doesn't mean I support every one of his policies or philosophy, or decisions. Everything stands on its own merit. Bush is not god. Even God himself, does not get a free pass from me. lol


What I don't have respect for, is all the Bush haters talking from both sides of the mouth when they criticize him. They have no problem criticizing him but turn around and give Democrats a free pass, for the same offence or worse, or even make excuse for the Democrats. That is simply hypocracy.


I have posted a long list of examples of what the Democrats have been saying about the Iraq war even back in Clinton administration. And compare those words to what they are saying now. It is nothing but talking from both sides of the mouth. Unprincipled. Morally bankrupt. Shameless hypocracy.


I don't care if people don't like Bush or think he is the dumbest or most clueless Pres, just as long as they can be honest and logical about it. I respect different political opinions and views, as long as they are logical and not hypocritical.

[HRx]

Whew this war in Iraq has gotten worse and worse since day one! The total casualty numbers are increasing by the day...which is extremely sad! The majority of the service members that are dying are young men, and women under the age of 30.

Our occupation in Iraq has only caused a civil uprising/war in Iraq. I don't know how long Bush, and his adminstration is going to continue beliving that military force is the answer! This definately isn't the appropriate strategy for combating terrorism---our actions in Iraq have clearly produced more harm than good! <sigh>