I consider myself a conservative and I do give credit to Clinton on gov. reform and raising taxes on the higher end of the wage scale...the welfare reform was well overdo as well...

on the Bush Administration, I give them a "F" on domestic policy and a "C" on international policy...

we need to be taking care of our own now...the Iraqi's do NOT want peace, they see us as an occupying force...we're stuck in the middle of a crap funnel that is getting deeper...

God bless the USA :)

Speeder, actually I said "..someone LIKE Aurel...(emphasis added)". So I guess that would include you :) . I also think that in order to be a "dittohead" you have to listen to Rush. I tune him in, on occaision in my car, but I would never classify myself as a "dittohead".

The most disatrous president ever? That award goes to Clinton. I think the only person I can see knocking him off that pedestal would be his wife...........I don't even want to think about that.

So, you think my politics would make an Ayatolla "blush"? That's okay, I have been insulted better than that before. I drive a Camaro too.

Your post proves the point I made, in that liberals are so blind to the truth that you will resort to "name calling" and insults to "prove" you're right. History (before it's re-written by liberals anyway) usually does vindicate the righteous. We will have to see what will become of our current president's legacy.

One more thing, if the democrats ever left office in anything other than disgrace, we would most definately give them credit for their work.

Hardflex, Thanks for the link, I will research it a little and get back to you. I wasn't paying too much attention to Bushs' run in TX, did he give many speeches? Man, is he painful to watch sometimes. Ok, I'm only going to bash clinton from now on, I don't want the dittoheads after me too.

Pete

If a Republican president had tried to that, all hell would've broken loose. The fact Clinton was a Democrat meant they went along.


my vote for worst President post-Kennedy goes to LBJ, because of VietNam and the Great Society. IMHO, Clinton's not in the top 3. And I didn't vote for him.

You've missed the point.

Saddam was trying to maintain the status-quo. For a decade he was quite successful at keeping the world in the dark as to what WMD he did (or did not) have. (read: this was working for him)

The decision for the Bush admin and congress, was; (in the wake of 9/11 of ignoring nasty guys) do we sit back and hope Saddam and his ilk don't (and won't) have some nasty WMD for future use?. . .or do we ENFORCE the cease-fire agreement Saddam agreed to, by sending in our own. . eh-em. . "inspectors"?

Could Bush etal handled this Saddam situation better? . ..likey.
Did Bush etal handled this Saddam situation well? . ..well, good enough for me not to "monday-morning qtr-back" the decision.

The Mahdi
 

Fact: In October 1993 CNN showed the body of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogidishu, Sommila. President Clinton ordered the removal of US troops from Sommila and never during his administration commited US Ground forces again as a result of those photos. In 1998 after the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya, President Clinton ordered the firing of Cruise Missiles at Al Qudea bases in Afganistan.

The US action to retreat in the face of adversity in Sommila in 1993 led Osma bin Laden and Al Qudea to conclude that America is weak...that Americans have no stomach for conflict....Al Qudea operatives had a hand in directing the Sommilies in fighting US troops. This embolden Al Qudea to further action against the US.

President Clintons decision to fire Cruise Missiles against Al Qudea after the Kenya bombings had the effect of popularizing Osma bin Laden in the Muslim world...as someone who successfully stood up against American Military might. This further embolden Al Queda to further actions against America ultimatelly resulting in 911.


Sometime it requires a leader that will keep his hands upon the wheel and his eyes upon the road and being the sharpest knife in the drawer is of secondary importance. We have seen what an intelligent President with little backbone to make the tough decisions has done for America. Who made decisions based upon what the polls showed...

GW rightly or wrongly has the helm tightly in his grasp....he is making decisons in a region of the globe where your damed if U do and damed if you don't. These decisions effect the very survival of the nation.

Never forget the dedication of our enemy....Osma bin Laden.. a man of extreme wealth, power and priviledge who chooses to live in a cave because of his beliefs. This is the power of men of Rightous Indignation, who would rather give up their lives than live in a world of secularism. This is a very powerfull enemy...one that could ignite the passions of the Islamic masses....

The problem is that, it looks to me, the leader does not know what he is doing. The boys went in Baghdad, won the war, removed Saddam...Good, but that was the easy part. Now, what is the strategy for Iraq ? How do you restore order, electricity, elections ? It is nice in the cow-boy movies to shoot first and think later, but in the real life, does not work that well :rolleyes:

Aurel

Did U ever hear of the "Fog of War"....when things are in flux nobody knows what exactly is going on....or for that matter is in control of events.... It is an illusion to presume we are in control of anything....other than perhaps our bowel movements and then when you eat the wrong thing even that illusion flushes away. Aren't I a clever lad...

Island, my friend, I haven't missed any point. To your benefit, and I've said this before, you're reasons for wanting to invade Iraq are better reasons than the actual ones. I still wouldn't agree w/ the decision, but I respect your reasons.

The latest out of Washington is that we were possibly "duped" by Iraqi exiles on WMD info; in other words, the Bush administration placed more value on questionable intelligence from people w/ an extremely vested interest in us removing Saddam Hussein, than other more legitimate sources who called the evidence (of all of the chem agents refered to by Bush in State of the Union speech) inconclusive or worse. Now, why on earth would Iraqi exiles who have been chomping on the bit to return to power for decades have any reason to lie?? :rolleyes:

And just to remind everyone, Iraq never had a cease fire agreement with us alone, or any agreement separate from the agreements that it signed with the U.N. Pesky details, I know, but they add up to an illegal war, especially when you throw in trumped up evidence/excuses for invading. And as Aurel correctly points out, not a very well planned war, was it?

If I was the parent of a dead or mutilated soldier, I would want Bush and company's heads on a platter. Where is the outrage? Clinton messes w/ an overweight intern, (and I'll agree that makes him an assclown, alright?), and he gets impeached! Bush stages a first-strike war unilatterally w/o the U.N. based on false evidence, and thousands are dead. $$Billions have been flushed and it looks worse by the week. The American people have been subject an ether attack or something, I don't understand the gullibility of supporters of this administration.

And Pete Pranger, it was not my intention to insult you. I simply meant that your type cannot be argued with; there is truly no amount of contrary information that will change your mind. What do we need, 50% unemployment and no more airline industry+ 100 U.S. deaths a day in Iraq before you reconsider? I do not want to know the threshold, you don't have to answer that. And I like Camaros as much as the next guy.

Lastly, Tabs. It is a "fact" that CNN showed the dead soldier in Mogidishu. Surely you do not mean to imply that all of your statements following this are facts? They are pure conjecture, motivations dreamed up by talk radio hosts and other neoconservatives, inadmissable in the court of political jousting. ;) HTF would you know the exact reason why Al Q. chose to strike when and where they did?? It could have just as easily been their outrage over George Bush Jr. getting in the White House, albeit through the back door. Maybe Mr. Ashcroft's people need to talk to you. ;)

Tabs, how exactly would you explain the current attacks on our people in Iraq? After such a flexing of military might by our fearless leader? Residual underestimating by guerilla fighters who don't know that the weakling Clinton is gone from power? :rolleyes:

And never forget Bin Laden, like you say. The American public seems to have...., weren't we going to get him, "dead or alive"? What a crock. I'd say that we have comedians in power, if only they were funny. :cool:

EDITED for punctuation.

denis, hear your argument loud and clear. I am disappointed at the lack of WMD evidence. I was under the impression the war was initiated due to the WMD.

In light of the "problem" administration, what would you do differently? In particular, how would you address the threats of terrorism? I don't need specifics. Please don't tell me the planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon were actually flown by cronies of GWB, as told by aliens to Aurel and Co.

If GWB was truly a cluster****, I know the Democrats would be hawking his arse 24/7. Additionally, I don't feel the American lives lost are a tragedy. These men and women know war is heck. It would be a tragedy if they lost their lives in vain. I hardly believe that is true, though.

Jürgen

The UN decision (and war action) to kick Saddam out of Kwaitt was started and led by the US and GHW Bush. the UN did not enforce the terms of the cease-fire. With France and Germany corruptly undermining the UN . ..well, it's all history now.

"not a very well planned war, was it? "
Well, diposing Saddam happened faster than it took Joe Millionaire to choose Zora. :D (credit: Denis Miller)

Speeder, you write and think beautifully. Congrats, man.

Jurgen, I do not know who really planned 9/11. I just do not buy the official thesis, there have been too many inconstencies in the official version. But like Pete Pranger, a mountain of evidence will never budge you from your position. That would be a waste of my time, and I have already done this exercise anyways. Your reality and mine will probably never meet, and it absolutely does not matter. Each one his truth, as long as we can live with it and respect eachother.

As far as preventing terrorism, what I would have done differently is UNDERSTAND what caused it. And fix the cause. Do not tell me that they are just evil people who are jealous of the american way of life, this is the explanation for arrogant little kids.

As far as WMD goes, they can now be found all around Baghdad, as radioactive dust from the DU ammunition that have been used three times more than in Gulf War I. It is now proven that this will make the soldiers sick and cause cancers among the iraquis, but apparently, the planners of the war do not care about these details. To me, thinking that they did not care about the 3000 lifes lost in the WTC is not such a big stretch either, but this is just me. And I respect the fact that this idea could be unacceptable for most.

Finally, the only certitude I have is that no one here knows the truth of the ongoing events. It is history unfolding itself, and it will take years for the dust to settle.

Aurel

Arguing is a Luxury
 

As if anything on this Board is anything but conjecture.....mine is inadmissable and yours is not? LOL

The WTC was being planned long before Bush took office...it was one more step in the escalation of the Jihad on America...

Get past the argueing about who is right and who is wrong....arguing over the spoils of war/victory whether it be the Superbowl or the war on Terrorism comes after you've won the war not while the enemy is holding the ball or guns pointed at you. What arrogance on your part....you think you've won and nothing can hurt you....guess again...

What I don't get is how conservatives can like this guy, (our president), what is conservative about creating the largest govt. bureaucracy in history, (Homeland Security), attacking the civil liberties and privacy rights of law abiding citizens, (Patriot Act I &II), inheriting the best economy since the invention of the wheel and running it into the ground like it's one of his businesses in Texas, being a rich, draft avoiding punk who plays dress-up on aircraft carriers on your dime, etc., etc....

He just doesn't seem like a good conservative to me. And the "war on terrorism" seems more like a war on good, intelligent policy to me. He'll be giving speeches on the frat house circuit soon, I predict. :cool:

Hey, he did a pretty good job ringing in Monday Night Football last night...which by the way was Thursday...:confused:

Denis,

I will take a stab at this. I am a conservative, but I am NOT a republican. I don't think that GWBush is that great of a president, but I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning.

I'm afraid I can't say much about your first point, I think our government should consist of the military, the mint and tha post office. You would think he would veto something just because he CAN. I am interested in seeing how this privitazation(sp?) of these federal jobs goes. That would be a good step.

I like the concept of homeland security, but I can't agree with it's implementation.

Congress passed the Patriot Acts (he could have vetoed them I guess......).

The economy was already on a downward spiral before he got here and the 9/11 situation didn't help any.

Being rich is a GOOD thing something most people aspire to, even democrats.

Clinton DODGED the draft, GWBush joined the guard. I guess if you had his opportunity, you would have signed up for the infantry right? My old man enlisted in the army even though he met the requirements that enabled him to avoid the draft (college, 2 kids)but he was assigned as a full track mechanic stationed at Fort Richardson in Anchorage. Just because the government sent him to Alaska and not SE Asia, you don't consider him a "draft dodger" do you? BTW Algore used his family influence to keep his sorry ass out of combat too. But thats different right.......

By "playing dress-up" I guess you took offense to when he went out to visit our troops where THEY work. Nobody rides in a military aircraft without a jumpsuit (ever seen a reporter take a ride with the Blue Angels?) and his visit didn't cost any more than a helicopter lift would have been. Ever consider that this might have been a boost to our sailors morale? I think they enjoyed meeting their commander in chief (one who didn't "loathe" them at least). As long as we're on this topic, when do you think the clintons are going to release the travel expenses for hillary and chelsea's trip to Africa on my dime? And they went.....why? So far they have refused to detail their expenses which is legal (for the time being, there is a statute of limitations on those things).

But of course I have missed the point right? I may not be a huge Bush fan (Jr or Sr), but he is a far and away a better president than Clinton was. Unfortunately he's no Reagan.

Since you are no big fan of Bush's war on terror, what would you do? I would have done things differently myself but I am always curious to the alternatives out there. It's easy to condemn someone's actions, but not so easy to come up with a better solution. BTW using Clintons theory of ignoring it and hoping it goes away doesn't count (and don't suggest getting rid of all those nasty aspirin factories, that didn't work last time).

BTW I was only kidding at feeling insulted when you compared my philosophies to that of an Iranian extremist.

Pete

Now, I think he is starting to realize that he has put the country in deep trouble, hence the call to the UN, which was, few months earlier, considered as totally out of the picture. I`ve heard numbers between $60Bn to $150Bn to rebuild Iraq. This can be compared to the $480Bn deficit we were discussing earlier, to understand the magnitude of the damage. And what did he achieve at that cost ? Created dozen of opportunities for new terrorists from all the middle east to join the Jihad. At least, if there had been WMDs...:rolleyes:
For me, he is an imbecile who should never ever have had a country to run.
Clinton was not perfect, but he was practicing the policy of appeasement. One can argue that this is what allowed El Quadea to develop. My opinion is that throwing oil on the fire like GW did will have much worse consequences. You cannot kill all the terrorists in the world. All you can do is supress the reasons that make them become terrorists. Is that so hard to understand ?

Aurel

Just an observation: over the weekend, I finally saw "Blackhawk Down." Good movie; not great, but good.

What was interesting was just how angry I was during the movie. I wanted those G.I.s to machine gun down every "skinny" (the movie's term for Somalian rebels) in sight. I felt particular pain when the U.S. troops were "evacuated" from the city - which looked more like a rescued.

I have a feeling Somalia may happen again, but in Iraq.

The Polish Army is coming into Iraq to help the U.S. with some of the "security" efforts. With that, our troops will have more ability to hunt down these terrorists who have flowed in from gawd knows where; Iran in particular is my guess.

But I just don't know. I'm weighing between whether this will become another Somalia or another Vietnam. It does not look good. I still maintain that Bush, his cabinet and advisors were horribly derelict in seeing the forest for the trees here. Nothing yet has changed my mind.

BTW: where are the WMDs?

:confused:

Iraq has all the makings that could make the US's involvement in Vietnam look tame in comparison.

Look at the moral, financial and political ramifications that quagmire of a 'conflict' caused the US.

The middle east is not a good place to be deeply involved in nationalist and extremist guerilla warefare.

Its the reason why the US is desperately starting to beg the rest of the world to share the pain of ruling iraq.

Plus, what is it costing us? $30 billion a month or so?

Aurel, the only thing that's hard to understand is that you really believe what you write. Appeasement? Are you kidding me? When has this ever been an effective strategy? These are people that want to KILL us. They don't care what we do, or who we are, they are indiscriminate murderers. I don't need to understand why they want to murder us (as if we ever could) this is not OUR fault. We need to STOP them and sometimes that involves death. The world is an ugly place sometimes, not everybody sees things like you or I do. Some people just want to destroy everything around them, there's no "reasoning" with that.

dd74 if you liked the movie, read the book, an excellent lesson to be learned. Do you know why that happened? The US did not have a single tank in the region. Why? Clinton felt that would appear too "agressive" on our part and didn't want to offend anyone. Someone had to explain to him "why" our troops refused to leave anyone dead or alive behind. He had neither the ability or the stomach to be commander in chief. Talk about derelict, after this happened, what did we do? Got the hell out of there as fast as we could, nothing says appeasement like running away. Helicopter insertion in the middle of the day to "capture" a warlord in the middle of a city armed to the teeth with absolutely no armor back up. The actual rescue was delayed for hours as to not piss off the UN by sending the wrong army to help us. This is the definition of derelict.

This has virtually no comparison to Vietnam. We never went to SE Asia to win. When you set up areas like the 38th parallel to allow the enemy to retreat and regroup, you set yourself up for failure. We are NOT bogged down in Iraq. We are trying to do something that has never been done before by anyone. Exit strategy is hard, especially when you want the indigenous people to reclaim their land. This is not a "war of attrition" like vietnam, we are trying to win and succeeding. We are not "begging" the UN for help, we are allowing them to take part if they want, under our rules, if we turned it over to the UN, it would THEN become an "unwinnable quagmire".

Pete