2861U2 said:
Excuse me?
Assuming you're referring to me, I do not feel defeated in the slightest. And about me bringing up Clinton? It's a fact, sir. If you guys disagree with the Republican candidates here, I don't care. I'm just trying to remind you that it was one of your own who started the policy. Same principle applies for your WMD example. Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact.
No I wasn't referring to you, or I may have, I don't know, because I hadn't read your posts before making my comment. I just saw the few posts before of Clinton and I had a feeling that the conversation had to do with what I was making fun of, about how neo-cons bring up Clinton when people attack Bush policies.
Now let me ask you this.
If I were to criticize Bush for using WMD as a reason to go into Iraq, why on earth would an attack on Clinton statements be a defense on my statement?
The same works the other way around.
If I attacked the Clinton administrations policy of DADT, saying that "Reagan supported a similar policy also" is NOT the appropriate response (not that Reagan supported it).
It makes more sense to defend the policy being attacked rather than saying that "so and so supported it also." Okay, well that doesn't make it right.
None of this is directed towards you or anyone specifically, i'm just saying.
Bringing up Democrats who voted for this war is absolutely a legitimate point in an argument, and anyone who says otherwise is, as far as I can see, ashamed and trying to run from the fact. [/B]
But why is that a legitimate point in the argument I don't understand?
Most of the Congress voted for the war, yes, but I still blame the executive branch more then any Senator or Congressman.
This may sound like a 3rd grade argument, but it was Bush's idea to begin with, he is the one that bent the truth and lied in some cases.
Does the Congress deserve partial blame even? Yes they do, because they were careless and irresponsible and just voted for the war without fully studying the facts. But they didn't lie. They were careless, but they didn't lie like Bush did.
So basically, Congress was lazy and Bush took advantage of it, in the simplest terms IMHO.
Let me give an analogy, its like having a prisoner escape from jail because of a lazy watchman.
While the watchman does have partial blame, most of the blame goes to the prisoner, because he was the one who actually took advantage.
Anyway, if you think it is a good idea to bring up democrats who voted for the war, why not also bring up republicans who voted for the war? So both republicans and democrats voted for the war, okay, so now what? Do you see my point? If i'm blaming Bush for lying to the nation about WMD's, there is no point in saying "Oh this Democrat voted for the war also" because I can just as easily say "Oh this Republican voted also." Its not going to get us anywhere in an argument, no point.
And by the way, my candidate Ron Paul did NOT vote for the war, just stating the facts.
Well you're still ignoring all context of the time. Until you are willing to recognise what was going on at the time, this discussion is useless.
It was easier to discriminate then.
. Scary when listening to the other candidates speak, but go, Ron Paul. Did I mention his views on dealing with terrorism make me happy?
