Clinton defensiveness

[Zen900]

I don't think I've ever seen an ex prez as defensiveas BC was in his interview on FOX. Not even Nixon was that defensive in post office interviews. In defense of BC(and I hate BC) I have to say that hindsight is 20-20. Yea everybody knows NOW that Bin Laden should have been killed by any means necessary before 9-11. If you read every paper in the US on Dec 6, 1941 not a single paper ran a headline that said JAPS TO BOMB PEARL HARBOR TOMMORROW.

The real problem isn't what Clinton didn't do but rather, the real problem is that there are still many American politicians who don't understand the severity of Islamic Jihadism. We can't go back in time and kill Osama before 9-11-01 but we can WAKE UP to the reality that America has an enemy that has declared war on us. The US is in a war and not because of something we did. This war is entirely the fault of Islam. Nobody forced Hitler to attack Poland, England, Russia and France. NOBODY! Hitler claims he was forced to attack them because of the Jews but that was his paranoia that made him think that way.There existed a grand neurosis in his mind. I think that is why so many countries failed to confront Hitler prior to his attacking Poland in 1939. Nobody really believed he could be that crazy. Well he was.

[azroaddust]

A point well made.

[Shooter973]

He lied under oath, on several differant occations. And now he wants us to believe that he did everything he could to get OBL!!! What a line of Bull----!!!

[Boogyman]

You'd be defensive too if you were attacked and accused of everything under the sun from 9/11 to aiding terrorists. He's probably sick and tired of all this B.S..

More smear tactics by the Reps, trying to make it sound like everything is Clinton's fault. This is the kind of dirty tricks they use to win elections.

You guys are quick enough to jump on it.

Clinton's been gone for over five years. There's no one to blame for the messes we're in right now except... that's right, you know who... BUSH

[azroaddust]

You'd be defensive too if you were attacked and accused of everything under the sun from 9/11 to aiding terrorists. He's probably sick and tired of all this B.S..

More smear tactics by the Reps, trying to make it sound like everything is Clinton's fault. This is the kind of dirty tricks they use to win elections.

You guys are quick enough to jump on it.

Clinton's been gone for over five years. There's no one to blame for the messes we're in right now except... that's right, you know who... BUSH

Why do you hate Bush and love Clinton who is/was probably the most immoral lying President this country has ever seen?

His selective meomory continues. Only 3-6 months ago he was interviewed on TV and asked why he didn't accept Pakistan's offer to have OBN turned over to us and his reply (Roughly quoted) was that " We (the USA) had no legal standing at the time to extridite or prosecute OBN". HOWEVER, OBN was already the chief suspect of being the perpetrator behind numerous terrorist attacks on US assets and that of other free nations.

Hate my President Bush all you want, but get your facts straight at least.

You take hate to a whole new level beyond even the most ultra-liberals. I dislike Hillary, Bill, Patty, Nancy, and numerous other (what I term) far-left Democrats, yet I still respect the office they hold and I don't blame every problem in the world on them as you do with Bush.

[Zen900]

He lied under oath, on several differant occations. And now he wants us to believe that he did everything he could to get OBL!!! What a line of Bull----!!!

Yes of course it's BS but but come on! It's Bill Clinton not George Washington. With George you heard "yes I did chop down the cherry tree" but with Bill you got "I did not have axe with that Lewinski".

[Boogyman]

Why do you hate Bush and love Clinton who is/was probably the most immoral lying President this country has ever seen?
Why do you hate Clinton and love Bush who IS the most immoral lying president this country has ever seen?

Clinton lied about a BJ, the Reps. wasted millions of taxpayers money to nail him for something that should have stayed between him and his wife.

Bush and Company lied about the reasons why we should invade Iraq, to convince the American people it was necessary. It was not.

Clinton's lie did not result in the deaths and maiming of thousands upon thousands of people, or destroy infrastructures of entire countries, thus draining the entire budget surplus (which Clinton saved) and put us deeper in debt than ever before by billions and billions of dollars.

Clinton did not destroy America's credibility and integrity in the eyes of the world, and through arrogance and stupidity create 100 times the number of terrorists by invading Iraq.

Clinton built a strong economy that even the lowest income Americans benefited from, not destroy the middle class by making the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Yeah, I hate Bush and his cronies, for the lies and what they've done to my country. Clinton was ten times the president Bush could ever hope to be.

Those are the straight facts you are asking for. But conservative republicans don't want to face up to them.

The only thing they have left is to blame everything on Clinton, because they can't admit to any blame themselves.

Sorry, not buying it.

[Dorkface]

Bush and Company lied about the reasons why we should invade Iraq, to convince the American people it was necessary. It was not.


I usually stay out of these anymore since I find bashing my head into my desk more productive then talking to some people BUT...

Did you already forget that a bunch of Democrates were also saying there were WMDs in Iraq? I know kerry, hitlery and I even wanna say Ted kennedy(I think) were saying he had them. Along with every other major foreign intel service and goverment in the world were saying the same thing. They all had the same intel so. So get over the whole Bush lied thing. :)

What about all the other weapons and gear that he had that he wasn't suppose to? they were all sold to him by france and russia...

[azroaddust]

"....do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."
Matthew 7:6

[Boogyman]

Did you already forget that a bunch of Democrates were also saying there were WMDs in Iraq? They all had the same intel so
Sorry, that's absolutely incorrect. Congress was NOT given "the same intel" as the Bush admin. had, they were given cherry-picked intel that left out the reports that said it was highly unlikely that Saddam had any WMD's. We know this now as facts admitted by former CIA and FBI officials who have stated so on record.
I know kerry, hitlery and I even wanna say Ted kennedy(I think) were saying he had them.
Again, they were going by "intel" that the Bush admin gave them.
Along with every other major foreign intel service and goverment in the world were saying the same thing.
Dorkface, you couldn't get any further from the truth! Germany, France, Spain, the UN, Russia, and many other countries warned against invading Iraq on WMD's because their intelligence contradicted what Bush was pushing.

You're the one that needs to "get over" falling for Bush's B.S., especially now that every thing he said has turned out to be WRONG.

[Boogyman]

"....do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."
Matthew 7:6
What's that supposed to mean? Are you calling me a "swine" now? And just where have I attacked you? :blink:

And what makes you think that any of that B.S. you've been "casting" are "pearls"? :lol:

Man, you guy's B.S. just keeps getting deeper by the minute.:rolleyes:

[Boogyman]

All you Bush-lovers can do is try to blame everything on a president that's been gone over five years. But you don't want to talk about the present, do you?

You want to know who is doing nothing to get Bin Laden right now? Here's the reality of the present situation, the painful truth that republicans don't want to talk about....

Karzai says U.S. underfunding Afghanistan"

Iraq war money could have stabilized nation against Taliban surge, he says

MSNBC and NBC News
Updated: 6:31 p.m. CT Sept 24, 2006
NEW YORK - The $300 billion the United States has spent prosecuting the war in Iraq could have been better used stabilizing Afghanistan against the resurgence of the Taliban, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

“Three hundred billion dollars? You give that to Afghanistan and we will be heaven in less than a year,” Karzai said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The interview, which was taped Tuesday for broadcast Sunday, signaled Karzai’s growing frustration with the administration that helped put him into power, just two days before he is scheduled to meet with President Bush in Washington.

At the same time that they are struggling with the insurgency in Iraq, the United States and its allies also face a renewed threat from the militant Islamist Taliban in Afghanistan, nearly five years after U.S. forces ousted the government that sheltered al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

More than 2,000 people, most of them militants, along with hundreds of civilians, aid workers and Afghan security personnel, have been killed so far this year in Afghanistan, while more than 100 foreign troops have died.

‘We are paying’ for inaction
Karzai denied that Afghanistan was out of control, saying, “It has difficulties, but it is not in a chaotic state.” But he said the international community had not done enough to address the root causes of unrest that fueled terrorism in Afghanistan.

“After the initial success in throwing out terrorism, the Taliban and their international sponsors in less than a month and a half in 2001, ... expectations went very high, in Afghanistan especially,” he said.

But that “made us forget one thing: While we had thrown terrorism away from Afghanistan, we had really not gone after their sources, their training grounds. ... And we are now paying for that.”

“The international community must take a much tougher action,” he added. “The international community must go to the sources of terrorism.”

Karzai suggested that the United States had taken its eye off Afghanistan, distracted by its fighting in Iraq, where it has spent hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, Afghanistan’s infrastructure remains in shambles and its new democratic institutions are under assault, fueling discontent among ordinary Afghans, he said.

“We definitely need more money for reconstruction,” Karzai said. “We will be very happy if more money is given to us for reconstruction. Afghanistan will be a very prosperous country if that sort of assistance is given to Afghanistan.”

With the sort of funding the United States has put into Iraq, “we will be the best country in that part of the world,“ he added. “And I hope it happens.”

Tension with Pakistan over bin Laden
The interview was conducted before a French newspaper reported late last week that the French foreign service believed bin Laden had died recently in Pakistan. Asked whether he knew where bin Laden was, though, Karzai said he believed the terrorist leader was, indeed, in Pakistan.

Karzai and Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, have publicly argued over whether Pakistan is doing enough to rein in al-Qaida and other terrorists believed to be hiding in Pakistan along the Afghan border. Karzai said on “Meet the Press” that Afghanistan had regularly forwarded leads to Pakistan intelligence about “terrorist sanctuaries” but that little action had been taken.

“We have a serious problem in this regard,” he said. “When I say we must go to the sources of terrorism, where they are trained, where they equipped, where they are given money, where they are given motivation and sent to kill international coalition forces, this is what I mean.”

Karzai stopped short of accusing Pakistan of protecting bin Laden, but he added, “If we all tried to act collectively, he would not be able to hide.”

By MSNBC.com’s Alex Johnson

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14986859/

[BlenderWizard]

Did you already forget that a bunch of Democrates were also saying there were WMDs in Iraq?
Sorry, that's absolutely incorrect. Congress was NOT given "the same intel" as the Bush admin. had, they were given cherry-picked intel that left out the reports that said it was highly unlikely that Saddam had any WMD's. We know this now as facts admitted by former CIA and FBI officials who have stated so on record.

Same info or not, they made the same claim. How does the info they had change the claim they all made?

[Boogyman]

Same info or not, they made the same claim. How does the info they had change the claim they all made?

You're kidding, right? :blink:

Read your question again, Blender.... how do you form conclusions? From the info available to you right? :wacko:

[azroaddust]

Boogy, I NEVER intentionally insulted you or called you a name. The reference to swine is straight from my Savior's mouth and he stated it in an analogous manner. I don't think Jesus was calling anyone a swine either.

You can post it, but I don't have to read it. If I were so inclined I could pick up any extremist left wing publication and read their rehtorical garbage anytime I want.

Ignore List.]

Respectfully yours, (YES, I have respect for all people regardless of their political or religous views, and that includes you too.)

[Boogyman]

The reference to swine is straight from my Savior's mouth
Really? You heard Him say it yourself? Wow, I didn't know you were that old! :lol:
I don't think Jesus was calling anyone a swine either.
And you knew Him that well, too, huh? You could tell what He was thinking? Wow. :blink:

You can post it, but I don't have to read it.
The truth hurts, doesn't it?
If I were so inclined I could pick up any extremist left wing publication and read their rehtorical garbage anytime I want.

And I could pick up any extremist right wing publication and read their rhetorical garbage anytime I want.

And I do. When I am "so inclined".
Boogyman This user is on your Ignore List.
You mean I am on your ignore list, right? :rolleyes:

Heaven forbid you would read anything that contradicts your strict, conservative mindset.

Better to hide your head in the sand, AZ... ;)
Respectfully yours, (YES, I have respect for all people regardless of their political or religous views, and that includes you too.)
Why thank you. And rest assured that I respect your political and religious views also, and that I mean no offense towards you in any way. ;)

[Olds]

If we are going to talk about pearls and swine let's at least look at the whole statement.

μη δωτε το αγιον τοις κυσιν μηδε βαλητε τους μαργαριτας υμων εμπροσθεν των χοιρων μηποτε καταπατησωσιν αυτους εν τοις ποσιν αυτων και στραφεντες ρηξωσιν υμας

Olds

[freesw]

<pedantic mode>Don't we think Jesus spoke mainly in Aramaic rather than Greek?</pedantic mode>

Zen900, I agree with your opening post. That we are facing a fairly clearly identifiable threat, one that shows no sign whatsoever of abating, is the most important national issue now and for the forseeable future.

Of that there should not be any real dispute.

What is offensive, at this time of reports from the national security establishment that Bush's Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism by creating the motive and training opportunity for terrorist recruitment, is the attempt by many of Bush's minions to divert attention from this and the rest of Bush's appalling record by pawning off responsibility for 9/11 onto Bill Clinton. That responsibility rightly belongs to three, and possibly four, presidential administrations, and W. Bush's is tied for first place at best. The Clinton administration gave the new Bush administration every piece of intelligence they had about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, along with their warning that Al Qaeda was the number one foreign policy threat at that time. The response of the Bush administration was to demote the number one point man on Al Qaeda, Richard Clark, and a collective yawn.

Bush got a free pass for doing nothing about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden for the first 8 months of his administration for long enough. Now that his minions are engaged in yet another of their infamous smear campaigns, this time trying to blame Clinton for 9/11, it is time to make it clear: if Clinton was a failure because he tried and failed to kill Bin Laden, Bush is even more of a failure; he has had much more time, and even far more reason, and still has not done so.

Bush diverted critical resources from Afghanistan at a crucial juncture for his ill-conceived Iraq misadventure; and before that he didn't give Bin Laden the priority warranted when he permitted local Afghanis to go after Bin Laden, rather than the US special forces who were in place and have trained their entire careers for such a high priority objective.

It would be needlessly callous to revisit the months prior to 9/11 in order to scrutinize the Bush record, and so there would be no need to do so, no reason to do so, were it not for the fact that now there is a concerted, orchestrated campaign to rewrite history and inaccurately tar Clinton with a blame he does not deserve, whatever else may be said of him. The Bush minions are trying to take advantage of the fact that Clinton does have some baggage to try to throw down something else on him, hoping that all the hatred towards Clinton they've drummed up over the years will blind their base to the obvious fact that it's a big fat lie. Like so many others from this sordid gang of political thugs.

[jeff]

So congress only got the intel they were supposed to have. Yet they voted to send us to war. I will tell you a congressperson can have any intel they want. If it is true that our president deceived them then they wanted to be or were too lazy to seek the truth. I get tired of this Bush deceived us thing on the part of congress we can say this, they can’t
It is utter bull *&& that they only can have what they are given

[freesw]

I don't mean to be disagreeable here, Jeff, but on what basis are you saying "a congressperson can have any intel they want"? That makes it sound as if there is really no such thing as classified intel -- and we know that most congresspersons are not given access to much classified intel. Furthermore, members of congress have multiple responsibilities and limited time. Yes, they have staffs for this, but in large part they have to rely on what they are told by their leadership, and the leadership has to rely in large part on what they are told by the commander in chief and his representatives. It is the president's job to state a case for war, and it should be congress's to declare war. If congress fell down on the job it was in failing to declare war or say they would not declare war. Instead, we got this end run around the constitution, this "authorization" that congress used to basically wash their hands of the level of responsibility the constitutin requires.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm

Please, do not try to claim that there was no deception on the part of the Bush administration. There was. "Mushroom clouds" etc. Come on! They sold the Iraq rush to war on mushroom clouds!

Iraq wasn't where there is a nuclear danger to this country. The source of those dangers is N. Korea, Pakistan, and now every other country that fears finding themselves on the US Axis of Evil list has figured out that the one way to forestall invasion is to develop and test a nuclear weapon. Bush's recklessness has, among other catastrophic consequences, triggered the second great nuclear arms race. Iran is only the second (after N. Korea; Pakistan developed their nuclear weaponry in response to India's, but in the wrong hands they could find their way off our shores, in Pakistani submarines, for real. We can at least track them, if it comes to that); there will be more.

Bush has been a terrible president. We need, must have, better leadership in the years going forward, to bring what will probably be the longest war in American history to a successful conclusion. At this point we should be grateful if we can make it to Jan. '09 without another major strategic blunder such as the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/et al mishandling of Iraq.

[deguello]

All you have to know about Clinton's attitudes toward defending this country from terrorists is to remember that he pardoned a bunch of puerto rican terrorists so that Hillary,(the american Evita Peron wannabee), could capture the PR. nationalist vote during her ny senate race. Clinton was, and is a disgrace , pathetically trying to rewrite a history of corruption thuggery, and bullying into a heroic narrative.Let's not forget, that like all liberal democrats, he shares a certain fondness for repressive,left-wing state terror:remember the atrocity in Waco. The man is so desperate, that he actually went on the Fox channel criticized by the Clintonista left, as part of the right -wing conspiracy, in order to defend his indefensible record. His meltdown will go down with Nixon's" I am not a crook rant "as one of the golden moments of American journalism. Kudos to Chris Wallace:lol: Deguello

[Boogyman]

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

That 2 week banning went by way too fast... :lol:

[BlenderWizard]

Boogy, I NEVER intentionally insulted you or called you a name. The reference to swine is straight from my Savior's mouth and he stated it in an analogous manner. I don't think Jesus was calling anyone a swine either.

You can post it, but I don't have to read it. If I were so inclined I could pick up any extremist left wing publication and read their rehtorical garbage anytime I want.

Ignore List.]

Respectfully yours, (YES, I have respect for all people regardless of their political or religous views, and that includes you too.)


Yeah, dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but, last time I checked, the Bible was written by a bunch of dudes.

Not by Jesus
Not by God

Men wrote the Bible.

[deguello]

Thanks for proving my point about demlibs love for political repression.You'd love it if those who disagreed with you were banned permanently,preferably to a re education camp.Deguello:lol:

[Boogyman]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/OptionalPlayer/NoTroll.gif

[azroaddust]

Yo Blender. I think you stuck your head into the blades and it nicked some common sense from you.

I NEVER said that He (Jesus) WROTE it. I implied that he SPOKE it! (As in "straight from His mouth" in my original post and your copy thereof.)

Learn to read and understand the King's language, Dude. No burst bubble here.

[Boogyman]

I NEVER said that He (Jesus) wrote it. I implied that he SPOKE it!
Aren't you putting your trust and faith in the word of man then?

You are trusting the men who wrote the bible to have written these words down EXACTLY as Jesus spoke them.

Wasn't the bible written quite some time after the fact? How do you know they got it right?

How do you know they just didn't make stuff up?

All men are fallible, and prone to mistakes or even outright fabrication, are they not?

Are you fallible, AZ?

After all, you did fail to capitalize the "H" in "he" when referring to Jesus:
I implied that he SPOKE it!
Isn't that sacrilege or something?

:)

[gossman]

mellow out guys, why is it so easy to go on the offensive when someone uses their faith? If it would have been a quote from Mark Twain or P.T. Barnham would that have made it different? we all have and practice a faith based belief system, for some it is a religious, for others a political idealogy.

[JimS]

Aren't you putting your trust and faith in the word of man then?

You are trusting the men who wrote the bible to have written these words down EXACTLY as Jesus spoke them.

Wasn't the bible written quite some time after the fact? How do you know they got it right?

How do you know they just didn't make stuff up?

All men are fallible, and prone to mistakes or even outright fabrication, are they not?

Are you fallible, AZ?

After all, you did fail to capitalize the "H" in "he" when referring to Jesus:

Isn't that sacrilege or something?

:)

Boogyman

I used to ask the same question about the Bible. But, if one takes the time to truly study the Bible (and the Archeological evidence - e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls) one will find that although The Holy Bible was physically written by men, it is in fact the fully infallible, inerrant, verbally inspired word of God. In fact, The Holy Bible as we have it now (Old Testament is over 95% word for word exactly in agreement with the Dead Sea Scrolls that predate the Greek texts by approximately 1500 years - meaning that greater than 95% accuracy has been retained over 2500 year period). Quite something when you think about it. The New Testament is composed of Gospels and letters written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ and these texts have also maintained their accuracy. Although, the texts themselves were not directly written by the hand of God, with the exception of the Ten Commandments which God wrote directly on the tablets after Moses smashed them, the words were provided directly to the men writing these texts and God has jealously guarded his Word. This is held up in the Bible itself with numerous passages directly showing that God commanded that his words be written down at the time. In addition, although science(archeology) has been able to prove much of the Bible (the places and history - further validating the Bible's trustworthiness), it has never been able to emprically prove any of it wrong. One other thing to note is the consistency of the Message throughout The Holy Bible - it never contradicts itself, even though it was written down by numerous individuals and over thousands of years. Again, quite extraordinary - don't you think. No other text can claim this - none have been written over as long a period nor by as many writers and been able to maintain a continuity of not only message but, also exact wording. This book "THE HOLY BIBLE" has withstood the test of time and man's involvement - no other explanation than God directing and perserving can answer this question - take any other text that has been translated a tenth the number of times this one has and see what errors you find.

In closing, Boogyman, have you ever read or studied The Holy Bible. If not, please take the time to sit down and read (with open mind and heart) the Gospel of John and contemplate who and what Christ is - and the message he brought and how that has endured.

Please, and I ask this with a sincere heart - do not judge Christianity by the Christians you see and interact with - none of us are good models to judge our Lord and Savior by - we are at best a very poor reflection. We are in fact sinners with the same issues and temptations as everyone else in the world and we have and do succumb to them at times - but, a true Christian strives to walk in Christ's footsteps. Please, when judging Christianity - read what Christ said and did and judge it on the basis of Jesus Christ and I think you will be very suprised at what it truly means to follow Christ.

Well I probably said way to much and I hope you do not take offense - but, it is important to me that people understand what they are missing. The Holy Bible says - and I believe it with my entire being - that all will bow before God in judgement - the question is will one have Christ as their intercessor that paid for our sins with his life - or will they stand before God with nothing but their own works and accomplishments. I pray all come to Christ and accept him before judgement.

JimS

[Boogyman]

Jims, I don't take offense at any of your post at all. In fact I realize that in your own mind you believe that you are helping me. That's nice.

For your information, however, I have read the Bible several times. I especially enjoy Proverbs, because there is a lot of wisdom there. But it takes a huge amount of faith to believe in this book as the word of God as you do, and I find my practicality and common sense overwhelms my imagination in that sense.

I'm not an athiest, JimS, in fact I have a strong spiritual side that not many see often. But my spirituality is based in the living world around me, not in a book. My connection with the Totality of Existence (what you call God) has no written word. The affairs of mankind are only a small part of the vastness of Eternal Life Energy.

I don't mean to belittle your faith, JimS, but there's no other way to say it... a book or a thousand books could not describe or contain all that is the Totality of Existence.

So by all means believe in what you wish. I will never try to coerce you to do otherwise. All I ask is for you to afford me the same in return.

[JimS]

Jims, I don't take offense at any of your post at all. In fact I realize that in your own mind you believe that you are helping me. That's nice.

For your information, however, I have read the Bible several times. I especially enjoy Proverbs, because there is a lot of wisdom there. But it takes a huge amount of faith to believe in this book as the word of God as you do, and I find my practicality and common sense overwhelms my imagination in that sense.

I'm not an athiest, JimS, in fact I have a strong spiritual side that not many see often. But my spirituality is based in the living world around me, not in a book. My connection with the Totality of Existence (what you call God) has no written word. The affairs of mankind are only a small part of the vastness of Eternal Life Energy.

I don't mean to belittle your faith, JimS, but there's no other way to say it... a book or a thousand books could not describe or contain all that is the Totality of Existence.

So by all means believe in what you wish. I will never try to coerce you to do otherwise. All I ask is for you to afford me the same in return.

Boogyman

I did not figure you were an Aethist, as I remember a previous post where you briefly discussed your faith. So fair enough concerning the coersion thing (not really my cup of tea anyway - I simply state my beliefs concerning my faith and answer question and let each person do as they will). I hope, however, you will not mind me praying for you from time to time.

Have a nice week. :)
JimS

[Boogyman]

I don't mind at all if you pray for me, JimS... but my life is very full of joy and contentment and I am happier than I probably deserve to be.

I'd prefer if you directed your positive thoughts and energy towards those who are much less fortunate than I... of which there are millions on this planet alone. :o

:)

[jeff]

I heard a congressman say that the classified reading room in the capital was small and it was inconvenient to go there. To send soldiers to war without making their own evaluation of the intel is at least dereliction of duty and at most criminal. And I think the war was justified. Now they want to cry foul, shame on them.

[Boogyman]

I heard a congressman say that the classified reading room in the capital was small and it was inconvenient to go there. To send soldiers to war without making their own evaluation of the intel is at least dereliction of duty and at most criminal. And I think the war was justified. Now they want to cry foul, shame on them.

So instead of blaming the horse for pulling the cart into the river, you are blaming the cart for not putting it's brakes on?

You are saying it's Congress's fault for trusting the Bush administration and believing the information they gave them?

Sorry, Jeff, but this is convoluted logic at best, aimed only at blaming others instead of who is really responsible.

For one thing, Congress did NOT "send soldiers to war". they only voted to give Bush the power to do so. And apparently at least half of the Democrats were suspicious enough of Bush's "intelligence" to vote against it, while none of the Republicans hesitated to follow the line.

And you still believe the war was justified? I guess this is no suprise in your case. You mentioned that you just retired from the military as a Colonel, correct? No offense, sir, but one does not rise to that rank by questioning authority. I mean that as a compliment, actually, I was ill-suited for the Army myself, I never rose above PFC. Too independent in my thinking.

[Olds]

<pedantic mode>Don't we think Jesus spoke mainly in Aramaic rather than Greek?</pedantic mode>

Agreed; however, the Spoken Word was recorded in Koine and for a very good reason. At the time of its authorship the Koine dialect was understood almost world wide. As such it is not surprising that Paul's letter to the Roman Church is written not in Aramaic or Latin but in Koine (common) Greek.

Olds

[JimS]

I heard a congressman say that the classified reading room in the capital was small and it was inconvenient to go there. To send soldiers to war without making their own evaluation of the intel is at least dereliction of duty and at most criminal. And I think the war was justified. Now they want to cry foul, shame on them.


Jeff

Just so you know you are not alone - I support your view of this entire situation.

JimS

[jeff]

Boggy you missed my point. It is utterly irresponsible to have doubts about something that important and not speak up. The fact that it is "inconvenient" is no excuse. The fact that I support the decision to go in is another subject entirely. By the way I retired as a Major not a Colonel. I started out as private so I have been at the bottom you act like ranking officers are inherently evil I have worked with enough to know they are honorable men who care deeply about thier oath, their men and the mission.

[Boogyman]

It is utterly irresponsible to have doubts about something that important and not speak up.
Sorry, you are the one who is missing the point!

I told you, the vote was to give Bush the power to make war, not actually invade. Many of the people who voted yes were under the impression that it would be used as leverage to threaten Saddam, not actually invade.

There were many voices raised in opposition to invading Iraq, but most of them shut up after being accused of being "unpatriotic" or "cowards" by the Bushies.

How convenient that you seem to have forgotten the reality of the situation at the time. <_<
you act like ranking officers are inherently evil
Just where in the hell do you get that impression? I went out of my way to make sure you knew I wasn't being derogatory:
No offense, sir, but one does not rise to that rank by questioning authority. I mean that as a compliment
I don't appreciate you trying to twist what I say or put words in my mouth. :angry:

[deguello]

So you believe in trolls, do you boogy?I can't say I'm surprised: you also said there were no terrorists in Iraq and that bush stole the elections(both),do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Deguello

[NWO]

OK guys. Let's keep this thread civil and on topic.

We don't need trolls, tooth fairys, or any of their ilk here.

What we do need is good debate, and civility.