I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
Take your own advice. You can't have it both ways. It is a little suspicious that Clinton bombed during impeachment.....but that's where it stops: Suspicion.
Yes. I'm glad you asked. You left out the part where Bush was elected in the first place only after many African-Americans were deliberately and often erroneously disqualified from voting in Florida in 2000 through a sweep of supposed felons. This was one among so many clear electoral abuses. Land of freedom, equality and democracy.
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
None of the 'problems' you cite were calculated specifically to target Republicans, nor were they calculated to disenfranchise a specific racial group. They were systemic errors - not attempts to subvert the system - and the errors affected both Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, the ?problems' I was talking about were exactly calculated to deprive Democrats from victory, and to disenfranchise African Americans. In other words, the problems that I was talking about were out-and-out electoral fraud and racism. Do you not have a problem with that? I do ? I still find it hard to let it go. The racism part is largely ignored by the ?white? media, but it is still very much on the minds of African Americans. There was far more to what happened in Florida than hanging chads.
And yes, if you take away the clear electoral abuses, Gore won Florida by a considerable margin.
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war, How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Yes Bush created that fear by trying to tell them that SH had WOMD that he'd be firing at us soon ( no he didn't acctaually say that but that was the inference ). Bush ramrodded this through congress and the UN because well you kind of want to believe the president's telling the truth. I'll bet they're sorry now.
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
But he did win the popular vote by a considerable margin so what does it matter ( I'm just using your logic )?
Yes Bush created that fear by trying to tell them that SH had WOMD that he'd be firing at us soon ( no he didn't acctaually say that but that was the inference ). Bush ramrodded this through congress and the UN because well you kind of want to believe the president's telling the truth. I'll bet they're sorry now.
How did this fumbling bumbling idiot get anything through congress? Aren't those guys much smarter than him? I mean, they are all pointing out what an idiot he is. How did they fall for all that?
How did this fumbling bumbling idiot get anything through congress? Aren't those guys much smarter than him? I mean, they are all pointing out what an idiot he is. How did they fall for all that?
Sigh.
Ok once again for those of you with short memory retention..................
Bush made them fearful that Saddam would attack us with his nonexistent WOMD. Like I said you kind of want to believe the president is telling the truth. Remember what he told the UN? That we would attack alone if necessary. He was so sure of his intel.
It's called giving him the benifit of a doubt.
There were members of government that didn't buy it for two seconds.
Ok once again for those of you with short memory retention..................
Bush made them fearful that Saddam would attack us with his nonexistent WOMD. Like I said you kind of want to believe the president is telling the truth. Remember what he told the UN? That we would attack alone if necessary. He was so sure of his intel.
It's called giving him the benifit of a doubt.
There were members of government that didn't buy it for two seconds.
The majority of congress approved of the use cof force in Iraq?
if you like I can post links to articles to any number of democratic leaders that were saying the same thing bush is saying before the war bagan going back to clinton's administration.
The majority of congress approved of the use cof force in Iraq?
if you like I can post links to articles to any number of democratic leaders that were saying the same thing bush is saying before the war bagan going back to clinton's administration.
Yes they wanted to believe him. He's the president after all. Like I said I'll bet they wish they hadn't now.
There were quite a few like Senator Byrd who didn't buy it and spelled out the reasons why.
None of the 'problems' you cite were calculated specifically to target Republicans, nor were they calculated to disenfranchise a specific racial group. They were systemic errors - not attempts to subvert the system - and the errors affected both Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, the ?problems' I was talking about were exactly calculated to deprive Democrats from victory, and to disenfranchise African Americans. In other words, the problems that I was talking about were out-and-out electoral fraud and racism. Do you not have a problem with that? I do ? I still find it hard to let it go. The racism part is largely ignored by the ?white? media, but it is still very much on the minds of African Americans. There was far more to what happened in Florida than hanging chads.
And yes, if you take away the clear electoral abuses, Gore won Florida by a considerable margin.
You have no proof of any kind.
I bet you didn't know that the Democrats hired a telemarketing frim to call people after they voted, instructing them to call their congressman to report problems. Gee.
As for the media affecting both parties, that's bullshit. The perceived loser (Bush) stood to accept more damage. There are stories of HUNDREDS of Republicans getting out of line at the polls once they heard the news. Even Bush CAMPAIGN workers didn't vote in many cases b/c they thought it was over.
Gore did not, in any way, "win" Florida. Not once. Ever. He was never even ahead by a single vote. There is absolutely no proof of disenfranchismen of black voters. What there is proof of is that the media told half the country the election was over before it actually was.
Yes they wanted to believe him. He's the president after all. Like I said I'll bet they wish they hadn't now.
There were quite a few like Senator Byrd who didn't buy it and spelled out the reasons why.
Sorry you can't pin this on other people.
Senator Byrd? Robert KKK Byrd? Oh my God.
You're a real piece of work, jimmac. It's not like Bush sat down with his "Super Secret False Iraq Intel" folder, let Congress peek at it, and then slammed it shut. They HAD ACCESS TO THE INTEL. THEY VOTED BASED ON IT. HELLO?
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
Boy is that flimsy. You really compare that to what Bush has done and why? I'm sorry but you're 100% biased.
You're not listening. The REASONING is the same. Had Bush only bombed, you'd still be up in arms. You're talking about flimsy? Please.
Originally posted by midwinter
I didn't say you were a Republican.
I'm pointing out that when Clinton made that argument, lots and lots of people said that the timing was suspicious and that SH, presumably, wasn't that much of a threat. And now many people want to trot that same speech that they'd questioned so vigorously out again as a means of justifying Bush's action vis a vis Iraq. You can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was right and those who questioned him were wrong, or Clinton lied, in which case, Bush's claims are even more suspect.
Take your own advice. You can't have it both ways. It is a little suspicious that Clinton bombed during impeachment.....but that's where it stops: Suspicion.
Originally posted by midwinter
Perhaps. As for lying: not about starting a war. Perhaps Bush started his war as a diversion from an otherwise disastrous domestic policy?
Disasterous? Economy no longer in recession. Huge new federal entitlement program that liberals should love. Two major tax decreases. Disaster? No.
Originally posted by Chinney
Yes. I'm glad you asked. You left out the part where Bush was elected in the first place only after many African-Americans were deliberately and often erroneously disqualified from voting in Florida in 2000 through a sweep of supposed felons. This was one among so many clear electoral abuses. Land of freedom, equality and democracy.
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You're not listening. The REASONING is the same. Had Bush only bombed, you'd still be up in arms. You're talking about flimsy? Please.
Bush did bomb, in like day one of his administration. He was 'sending a message' and I didn't run here and freak out.
So you're wrong. Try again.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
None of the 'problems' you cite were calculated specifically to target Republicans, nor were they calculated to disenfranchise a specific racial group. They were systemic errors - not attempts to subvert the system - and the errors affected both Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, the ?problems' I was talking about were exactly calculated to deprive Democrats from victory, and to disenfranchise African Americans. In other words, the problems that I was talking about were out-and-out electoral fraud and racism. Do you not have a problem with that? I do ? I still find it hard to let it go. The racism part is largely ignored by the ?white? media, but it is still very much on the minds of African Americans. There was far more to what happened in Florida than hanging chads.
And yes, if you take away the clear electoral abuses, Gore won Florida by a considerable margin.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok then, what do you call all the dems that approved the war, How about clinton when he used the exact same logic to bomb Iraq. Come on it is the same thing on a smaller scale.
If you are arguing that this war was started out of fear, then all of the democratic congressmen that went along with it have blood on their hands also according to you.
Yes Bush created that fear by trying to tell them that SH had WOMD that he'd be firing at us soon ( no he didn't acctaually say that but that was the inference ). Bush ramrodded this through congress and the UN because well you kind of want to believe the president's telling the truth. I'll bet they're sorry now.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. Oh right, because "the inspections worked". Saddam was harmless.
WHERE'S THE WOMD?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Disasterous? Economy no longer in recession. Huge new federal entitlement program that liberals should love. Two major tax decreases. Disaster? No.
WHERE'S THE JOBS?
Originally posted by SDW2001
And you left out the part where 10,000 Republicans in the panhandle were disenfranchised when they hear their vote wouldn't count. You left out the 2,000,000 disenfranchised Republicans in other states with polls still open when FL was called. Gore was never the winner in Florida, not by a single vote.
But he did win the popular vote by a considerable margin so what does it matter ( I'm just using your logic )?
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes Bush created that fear by trying to tell them that SH had WOMD that he'd be firing at us soon ( no he didn't acctaually say that but that was the inference ). Bush ramrodded this through congress and the UN because well you kind of want to believe the president's telling the truth. I'll bet they're sorry now.
How did this fumbling bumbling idiot get anything through congress? Aren't those guys much smarter than him? I mean, they are all pointing out what an idiot he is. How did they fall for all that?
Originally posted by NaplesX
How did this fumbling bumbling idiot get anything through congress? Aren't those guys much smarter than him? I mean, they are all pointing out what an idiot he is. How did they fall for all that?
Sigh.
Ok once again for those of you with short memory retention..................
Bush made them fearful that Saddam would attack us with his nonexistent WOMD. Like I said you kind of want to believe the president is telling the truth. Remember what he told the UN? That we would attack alone if necessary. He was so sure of his intel.
It's called giving him the benifit of a doubt.
There were members of government that didn't buy it for two seconds.
Originally posted by jimmac
Sigh.
Ok once again for those of you with short memory retention..................
Bush made them fearful that Saddam would attack us with his nonexistent WOMD. Like I said you kind of want to believe the president is telling the truth. Remember what he told the UN? That we would attack alone if necessary. He was so sure of his intel.
It's called giving him the benifit of a doubt.
There were members of government that didn't buy it for two seconds.
The majority of congress approved of the use cof force in Iraq?
if you like I can post links to articles to any number of democratic leaders that were saying the same thing bush is saying before the war bagan going back to clinton's administration.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The majority of congress approved of the use cof force in Iraq?
if you like I can post links to articles to any number of democratic leaders that were saying the same thing bush is saying before the war bagan going back to clinton's administration.
Yes they wanted to believe him. He's the president after all. Like I said I'll bet they wish they hadn't now.
There were quite a few like Senator Byrd who didn't buy it and spelled out the reasons why.
Sorry you can't pin this on other people.
Originally posted by bunge
Bush did bomb, in like day one of his administration. He was 'sending a message' and I didn't run here and freak out.
So you're wrong. Try again.
The intelligence is what matters. The action based on that intel is not the point.
so what is DONE based on THAT knowledge IS the issue
but it doesn't matter what he could have said . . . they wanted war at all costs
see the Pentagon thread
Originally posted by Chinney
None of the 'problems' you cite were calculated specifically to target Republicans, nor were they calculated to disenfranchise a specific racial group. They were systemic errors - not attempts to subvert the system - and the errors affected both Democrats and Republicans. Meanwhile, the ?problems' I was talking about were exactly calculated to deprive Democrats from victory, and to disenfranchise African Americans. In other words, the problems that I was talking about were out-and-out electoral fraud and racism. Do you not have a problem with that? I do ? I still find it hard to let it go. The racism part is largely ignored by the ?white? media, but it is still very much on the minds of African Americans. There was far more to what happened in Florida than hanging chads.
And yes, if you take away the clear electoral abuses, Gore won Florida by a considerable margin.
You have no proof of any kind.
I bet you didn't know that the Democrats hired a telemarketing frim to call people after they voted, instructing them to call their congressman to report problems. Gee.
As for the media affecting both parties, that's bullshit. The perceived loser (Bush) stood to accept more damage. There are stories of HUNDREDS of Republicans getting out of line at the polls once they heard the news. Even Bush CAMPAIGN workers didn't vote in many cases b/c they thought it was over.
Gore did not, in any way, "win" Florida. Not once. Ever. He was never even ahead by a single vote. There is absolutely no proof of disenfranchismen of black voters. What there is proof of is that the media told half the country the election was over before it actually was.
Originally posted by jimmac
WHERE'S THE JOBS?
At the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Go There. Now.
Originally posted by jimmac
But he did win the popular vote by a considerable margin so what does it matter ( I'm just using your logic )?
What margin....hmmm....about 2,000,000? What a coincidence!
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes they wanted to believe him. He's the president after all. Like I said I'll bet they wish they hadn't now.
There were quite a few like Senator Byrd who didn't buy it and spelled out the reasons why.
Sorry you can't pin this on other people.
Senator Byrd? Robert KKK Byrd? Oh my God.
You're a real piece of work, jimmac. It's not like Bush sat down with his "Super Secret False Iraq Intel" folder, let Congress peek at it, and then slammed it shut. They HAD ACCESS TO THE INTEL. THEY VOTED BASED ON IT. HELLO?