I saw a kinder gentler GW Bush tonight..

[diamond]

So are you saying the US should have put some sort of pressure on Iraq in 1993 or 1998 when they first began to violate their sanctions? I hardly think it would have made sense back then given the circumstances. Then again, I'm not sure what has really changed between then and now regarding our relationship with Iraq.

Yes.
We shoulda.
The current President then was dealing w other issuses, perhaps.
Chasing skirts
Jogging to McDonalds
Invading Haiti
Sending our soilders to be ambushed in Somolia.

Clinton was lousy at foriegn policy.
Did ok w Ireland
Did ok w Bosnia..

Saddam never feared Clinton like the Bushes..

thats about it..

Arun-
I have 3 words for you-
1-Gulf
2-War
3-Treaty

In the last 10 yrs..Iraq signed this document and violated many times over.

We dont need new UN resolutions to blast Iraq.
We just forgot about what Iraq agreed to do when they surrendered in 1991.
GWBush is demonistrating that he IS NOT a mad-mad by getting 75 per-cent of the elected officials on his side both Democrat and Republican..

At this time-GW now has the majority of the Democrats on his side in the Senate.
GW has a 66 per cent Job Approval Rating
Either GW is doing the right thing..
or
ALOT of Democrats are selling out.
Which is it?




And thats the accurate truth.
Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable..

Peace-
diamond

 

[TylerDurden]

Oh it will be a wake-up call alright...

 

[pinkfloyd]

4D

Hey you , Whitehouse
ha ha charade you are
You house proud town mouse
haha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet ,
and do you feel abused
.....!.......!......!......!.........!
YOU gotta sterm the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside
Mary you're nearly a treat
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a CRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!

Big green Bob's country bunker's parrot
with big collection of smilies came one day and said:
" hi my name is Diamond and i am Bush'oholic "

 

[Foxxern]

Yes.
We shoulda.
The current President then was dealing w other issuses, perhaps.
Chasing skirts
Jogging to McDonalds
Invading Haiti
Sending our soilders to be ambushed in Somolia.

Ah, how quickly we forget how wonderful things were under the Clinton administration. Incredible stock market (fueled not primarily by internet stocks, but by old-world blue chips like oil and banks), 50-year low in unemployment, welfare rolls at an all-time low, record number of housing starts, more people attending college than ever before, much more even distribution of wealth in America, huge improvements in the situation between Israel and Palestine (thanks in no small part to American-aided negotiations), war in the Balkans settled with an American-brokered peace accord.

Oh but now that those days are over, its so easy to blame Clinton for all the problems in the world. It's also so easy to feel un-American for supporting Bush nowadays. Seems everywhere you go, someone is saying you're "not supporting America" if you disagree with Bush. But I'm not worrying. Bush's approval ratings are off more than 20 points from the over-inflated levels we saw just one year ago. Slowly the American people are getting over our "victory" in Afghanistan (replacing an ultra hardline regime with a puppet government). The sad state of affairs here at home is setting in, and yet seems to be completely ignored by our president. Continuing on the same warhawk rhetoric while ignoring key domestic issues, he should be down to somewhere around 40% come November 2004.

Just seems odd to me that in 1998, we didn't have a majority of the American public supporting war on Iraq. The argument then was that Saddam and a greatly weakened Iraq posed little realistic threat. What has changed since then? Are we now so paranoid about any country who we do not see as an ally? Iraq could potentially have weapons of mass destruction. So could North Korea, Iran, and China. Are they next on our list of countries to take over?

And Diamond-
Your descriptions of Bill Clinton as a skirt-chaser and an overweight, fast food eater are more than a bit immature (I won't even get into your other comments about others). Not once on here have I referred to George Bush as a cokehead, drunk, idiot (for his C average in college), or anything of a similiar nature because of irrelevant subjects in his past. If you want people to believe that your opinion is unbiased, you may want to double-check your posts. Some of your comments make it very hard to take you seriously.

 

[Foxxern]

At this time-GW now has the majority of the Democrats on his side in the Senate.
GW has a 66 per cent Job Approval Rating
Either GW is doing the right thing..
or
ALOT of Democrats are selling out.
Which is it?

What? You mean Democrats are actually trying to work with a Republican president, rather than trying to get him impeached on an insignificant, irrelevant charge? Incredible.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

What? You mean Democrats are actually trying to work with a Republican president, rather than trying to get him impeached on an insignificant, irrelevant charge? Incredible.

some of you guys can put stuff into words that i just can't.

 

[STING2]

Foxxern,

If graduating college with a C average or doing any thing less including never attending college classify's someone as dumb, then 90% of the US population and over 99% of the global population is dumb.

 

[Foxxern]

Foxxern,

If graduating college with a C average or doing any thing less including never attending college classify's someone as dumb, then 90% of the US population and over 99% of the global population is dumb.

I never said that anyone like that was dumb. Regardless, most of those people also aren't qualified to be president of the United States. I thought we looked for a leader who exemplified the best we have to offer.

 

[Zoomerang96]

diamond your a complete tool. i cannot understand your fascination with dubya.

what makes me sick is how you asked for responses to his speech, and anytime someone posted something you didnt agree with, you called it "biased."

 

[Dreadsox]

What? You mean Democrats are actually trying to work with a Republican president, rather than trying to get him impeached on an insignificant, irrelevant charge? Incredible.

That's right:

-the harassment of women
-the covering it up
-the lying under oath

Are all irrelevant.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ah, how quickly we forget how wonderful things were under the Clinton administration. Incredible stock market (fueled not primarily by internet stocks, but by old-world blue chips like oil and banks), 50-year low in unemployment, welfare rolls at an all-time low, record number of housing starts, more people attending college than ever before, much more even distribution of wealth in America, huge improvements in the situation between Israel and Palestine (thanks in no small part to American-aided negotiations), war in the Balkans settled with an American-brokered peace accord.

And Nixon ended the Vietnam War and Opened the door to China. He did some good things yet was decent enough to resign when it was clear that he had covered up a crime. Harassment and lying under oath are crimes.

The problem with Clinton is how convenient it was for him to launch missles on the day he testifies. How quickly we forget that the missles he launched were aimed at Saddam and the "Chemical Plant". Interesting to note that the military leaders argued that the "Pharmacutical Plant" should not be fired upon because there was NO evidence of a link to Al-Qaeda. The White House insisted it be a target even after. Why was this a target? Guess what now four-five years later it is clear that it was just a "Pharmacutical Plant". Evidence that the man would do anything to take our minds of his, "That depends on what "is" is.

Abuse of power. As a matter of fact, the standards in our own military are such that the person would have been subject to a court marshall.

Oh but now that those days are over, its so easy to blame Clinton for all the problems in the world. It's also so easy to feel un-American for supporting Bush nowadays. Seems everywhere you go, someone is saying you're "not supporting America" if you disagree with Bush. But I'm not worrying. Bush's approval ratings are off more than 20 points from the over-inflated levels we saw just one year ago. Slowly the American people are getting over our "victory" in Afghanistan (replacing an ultra hardline regime with a puppet government). The sad state of affairs here at home is setting in, and yet seems to be completely ignored by our president. Continuing on the same warhawk rhetoric while ignoring key domestic issues, he should be down to somewhere around 40% come November 2004..

Do you really believe that he is not working on these issues? Just curious.

Just seems odd to me that in 1998, we didn't have a majority of the American public supporting war on Iraq. The argument then was that Saddam and a greatly weakened Iraq posed little realistic threat. What has changed since then? Are we now so paranoid about any country who we do not see as an ally? Iraq could potentially have weapons of mass destruction. So could North Korea, Iran, and China. Are they next on our list of countries to take over?

How about some quotes figures ect. You say the majority did not support it without any fact mentioned whatsoever.

And Diamond-
Your descriptions of Bill Clinton as a skirt-chaser and an overweight, fast food eater are more than a bit immature (I won't even get into your other comments about others). Not once on here have I referred to George Bush as a cokehead, drunk, idiot (for his C average in college), or anything of a similiar nature because of irrelevant subjects in his past. If you want people to believe that your opinion is unbiased, you may want to double-check your posts. Some of your comments make it very hard to take you seriously.

Fact:

Clinton chased women, betrayed his marriage vows, and failed to uphold the constitution by lying. Bill Clinton loved McDonalds. He provided no evidence of any change in his behavior patterns EVER.

TO make fun of someone who has addmitted to problems and clearly changed their patterns and reformed their ways would be pretty immature. Thank you for not doing it.

I love Diamonds posts. Don't change dude. Humor is the best way to deal with life sometimes.

Peace to all.

 

[diamond]

And Nixon ended the Vietnam War and Opened the door to China. He did some good things yet was decent enough to resign when it was clear that he had covered up a crime. Harassment and lying under oath are crimes.

The problem with Clinton is how convenient it was for him to launch missles on the day he testifies. How quickly we forget that the missles he launched were aimed at Saddam and the "Chemical Plant". Interesting to note that the military leaders argued that the "Pharmacutical Plant" should not be fired upon because there was NO evidence of a link to Al-Qaeda. The White House insisted it be a target even after. Why was this a target? Guess what now four-five years later it is clear that it was just a "Pharmacutical Plant". Evidence that the man would do anything to take our minds of his, "That depends on what "is" is.

Abuse of power. As a matter of fact, the standards in our own military are such that the person would have been subject to a court marshall.



Do you really believe that he is not working on these issues? Just curious.



How about some quotes figures ect. You say the majority did not support it without any fact mentioned whatsoever.




Fact:

Clinton chased women, betrayed his marriage vows, and failed to uphold the constitution by lying. Bill Clinton loved McDonalds. He provided no evidence of any change in his behavior patterns EVER.

TO make fun of someone who has addmitted to problems and clearly changed their patterns and reformed their ways would be pretty immature. Thank you for not doing it.

I love Diamonds posts. Don't change dude. Humor is the best way to deal with life sometimes.

Peace to all.

Some of these left-leaners are EXTREMELY sensitive

DB9

 

[anitram]

Did ok w Bosnia..

Clinton did better than Bush Sr, who wouldn't recognize foreign policy if it smacked him on the head. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Both the Bushes have an astounding lack of coherence in their foreign policy, both are disliked globally, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

 

[Dreadsox]

Clinton did better than Bush Sr, who wouldn't recognize foreign policy if it smacked him on the head. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Both the Bushes have an astounding lack of coherence in their foreign policy, both are disliked globally, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

I think Clinton did better in some areas however:

He is ultimately the person responsisble for letting Al-Qaeda get stronger and stronger after we had been attacked time and time again since 1993.


I would disagree with you on George HW Bush. He did a much better job at gaining world support for Desert Storm than his son has done with this war.


As for not trusting them I have pointed out in another thread that Bush Sr and his associates have been involved in:

-Bay of Pigs (1960)
-Operation Mongoose
-Possibly Kennedy Assasination (very debatable)
-Election Fraud in FL 1970 (some links debateable)
-Watergate
-Delaying the release of Iranian Hostages
-Arms to Iran
-Arms to the Contras
-Election Fraud in 2000 in FL

However, his son is our President and he has managed to convince a majority of our Congress to support him in these times. I wonder how so many of the Democrats changed their stripes to give him this authority unless there is information out there that has not been made public.

 

[STING2]

Antrim,

It was Bush Sr. excellant handling of the Persian Gulf Crises that helped remove Saddam from Kuwait with a massive worldwide coalition. People forget there was massive opposition back then against removing Iraq from Kuwait with force. But Bush Sr. skillfully united much of the world to support such action and finally got enough support from congress to do the right thing. The opposition wanted to use sanctions to remove Saddam's army from Kuwait. The whole thing was an incredible feat and the most successful and one sided war in the military history of the world. This was thanks in large part to the defense spending increases of the Reagan and Bush Sr. own term.

Bush Sr. had no real failures when it comes to foreign policy unlike Clinton. In addition, the successes that Clinton had pale in comparison to the success that Bush Sr. had in his term. Clinton's foreign policy challenges also pale in comparison to Bush Sr.. Clinton inherited a world without the difficulties and economic drain on resourses that the Cold War world had. Clinton also inherited the most powerful military force in the history of the world, built by Reagan and Bush Sr.. He also inherited an economy that despite a mild recession, was already growing again.

 

[TylerDurden]

I would disagree with you on George HW Bush. He did a much better job at gaining world support for Desert Storm than his son has done with this war.

Well, that was a bit more blindingly obvious, the world could easily see that Iraq had invaded Kuwait. Having a decent reason helps. Bush Jr I think is still looking for it.

 

[Dreadsox]

Having a decent reason helps. Bush Jr I think is still looking for it.

Hmmmm.........

Violated UN Resolutions is not enough?
Why would sooooo many Democrats support the resolution?


The one thing, that makes me think he is desparate for a reason, is this fighter pilot that has had his status changed from Killed in Action to Missing in Action from Desert Storm.

Now as a former soldier it tears at my heart to think this guy was left behind for dead. As a thinking citizen, I really hope they are not changing his status for political purposes. This would really be sinking low in my book.

 

[diamond]

[diamond-you are a complete tool [/B]

thank u
plez dont call me a penis
My preference is to be addressed as a "tool" instead of a "penis"
"Tools" seem to have much more aim and better direction than floppy little "penises''

thank u-
DB9

 

[garibaldo]

Let me throw a few in here:

1. Clinton was NOT responsible for the stock market. Get a clue. Why don't you try making an arguement rather than a correlation. Hey! Hitler was probably around when something good happened. Let's credit him for everything good that happened and call him a hero! I guess Jimmy Carter is responsible for the huge inflation and unemployment then, right? Admit it, you're morons.
2. Low in unemployment? Hmmm...maybe that's due to a good economy. See ABOVE!
3. Who pushed welfare reform the most!? Guess! I can't believe the liberals are taking claim to this. Dumb hos.
4. There isn't a radically different distribution in wealth than there was two years ago when Clinton was here.
5. I'd like to see you argue how college entrances and housing starts are due to Clinton.

Seriously now, scientists have a saying:
"Correlation is not causation"
Let me spell it out for you. Clinton was incredibly lucky to come into office when the dotcom boom was happening, the commies were no longer a threat and Hussein was bitchslapped. He was LUCKY! He was not directly responsible for all this. You people are mental retards.

Here are some personal strikes against him:
1. Married a very liberal, power hungry bitch and then screws around on her.
2. Refused the offer to extradite Osama from the Sudan in 1996, which makes him partly responsible for 9/11 esp given all the evidence that existed against OBL at the time.
3. Lied like a bitch
4. Gotta go to class now. More against Clinton later (if I feel like it)

 

[Dreadsox]

Someone remind me why I am a Republican again!!!!!!!!!!