Democrats Disingenous in Their Rhetoric

[timmgirvan]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

So the many Republicans who voted for the resolution and are also speaking out against the war are off the hook, in your book?

Here's the part in the article I found most interesting:

<<Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.">>

Sooooo... GW said he wouldn't use troops for nation-building, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to send troops into a nation that had not been involved in 9/11... to depose the leader and set up a gov't friendly to US interests. Sounds like nation-building to me. So what does that make GW?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So the many Republicans who voted for the resolution and are also speaking out against the war are off the hook, in your book?

Here's the part in the article I found most interesting:

<<Democratic leaders from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama have long lamented that the United States did not preempt in Africa to stop the Rwandan genocide. In contrast, George Bush, not Al Gore, ran for the presidency in 2000 promising to end Clinton's humanitarian interventions, whether in the Balkans, Haiti or Somalia. As then-candidate Bush put it, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building.">>

Sooooo... GW said he wouldn't use troops for nation-building, and then used 9/11 as an excuse to send troops into a nation that had not been involved in 9/11... to depose the leader and set up a gov't friendly to US interests. Sounds like nation-building to me. So what does that make GW?

That's pretty simple really....It didnt start out that way. but the Iraqis' are so lame that we poured billions into a country that wasn't ready for the 21st century!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

That's pretty simple really....It didnt start out that way. but the Iraqis' are so lame that we poured billions into a country that wasn't ready for the 21st century!

So the collapse of Iraq is the Iraqi's fault? What were we doing in 2003, then? Selling them ice cream?

Oh my God, I cannot believe the "how dare the Iraqis be ungrateful after all we've done for them" bs coming from the right-wingers. All we did was destroy their infrastructure, disband their police force and provide a breeeding ground for terrorists. How dare they be ungrateful!

[timmgirvan]

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

Timm,
As you know, in the words of our furher (oops), leader, VP extraordinaire,
our wonderful vice spinner in chief declared today that "the Iraq war is a remarkable achievement".
I just hope Howard takes him on a quail hunting trip while he's in Austrailia.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3459241.html

I know that nothing I could possibly say will change your mind. Heck, we all want to believe.
I believe that impeachment should start with Darth Dick.
War crime trials later...
Lets use the same rope that was used for Saddam.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

They didnt have an infrastructure,a real police force and they already were helping terrorists. When all was said and done, the people were still splintered by religious factions jockeying for power, thereby thwarting the establishment of a strong govt.

Timm, I hate to say this, because he was a monster, but they did have a strong government, under Saddam- he kept three warring factions under control. Pull him out, and they, as you said, started jockeying for power. And now what, somewhere between 300,000 and 600,000 Iraqis are dead. Was it worth it? I don't know. That's a lot of people dead. More dead in four years than in his entire regime, and the man killed a lot of people. And 3,000 Americans on top of all that, and thousands and thousands more permanently maimed. Do you think all their lives were worth what's there? Because we made that happen. Whatever awful things happened pre-2003, since then, what has happened is our fault. No one else's. We have created this. It's ours.

Yes, they did have a police force and an infrastructure- one of the major mistakes made immediately after the invasion was disbanding the force. For all the right-wing's spin, electricity is still not back to what it was in Saddam days. And it wasn't all that great in Saddam days, but in four years, we've managed to make it even worse. Of course, seeing how well we've done with New Orleans, why am I surprised? At least 300,000 to 600,000 haven't died there, too.

But it's okay, Timm; I know you have a man-crush on GW and he can do no wrong in your eyes.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...s_in_thei.html I ran across this article, and I thought it spoke to the issues and history of current and past Congressional skirmishes. I believe it's worth reading, if only to stem the din from the left!

Timm,
That's an interesting article. Seems that some Repub supported dictators' names were left out. Pinochet? Marcos? Shah? I could go on and on.
Who was president that set things up for Pol Pot?
I'll go back to watching "Faux News" to see what Hannity's take is on all this.
Maybe Billo can shed some light.