further proof that every problem on the planet is bill clinton's fault.

further proof that every problem on the planet is bill clinton's fault.

No, but in a finger-pointing society, which we seem to have become, one must expect to have fingers pointed back. You can't declare open season on President Bush and then declare everyone else off limits.

Sorry, but it's a lame argument.

David

we've been over this territory before. two wrongs don't make a right...and in this case the fingers pointed back at clinton, and complaints about them, have absolutely nothing to do with 'open season' being declared on bush.

not in my mind anyway.

It's pretty convoluted thinking to imply that starting a bloody war is "good" (Bush) while keeping the country out of war is somehow irresponsible (Clinton).

By now it has been shown that there were no weapons of mass destruction. The whole WMD issue and the "nuclear threat" intimated by Bush was bogus at worst and bad intelligence/very bad judgement at best. Most of the world was counseling patience, and now they can say "We told you so."

But... what can you expect when someone like Bush Jr. is elected president. "Mission Accomplished"? Indeed !

Anything Ted Kennedy says is politically motivated, but Ted Kennedy, while I think he is a very effective politician, does not speak for most moderates or liberals.

To be fair, let's just remind everybody that creating an independent counsel to go after Clinton, but setting that counsel to 'expire' upon the end of his administration and deciding to not renew it, upon finding out the Supreme Court was going to hand the presidential office to their pal, was surely NOT based in political motivation.

Well, Chamberlain kept Europe out of war with Germany, was that good? Was was the death toll of that war? Upwards of 20 million? There are sins of omission and sins of commission.

As for the "bad intelligence," and the missing WMDs, we used and promoted the same evidence that President Clinton did in December of 1998 just prior to launching a missle strike on Iraq. Clinton, Daschle, Kerry, Gephardt, etc, were all crowing over "the Iraq threat." And it was President Clinton who made our official Iraq policy one of regime change.

It's easy to critisize from your armchair, not so easy when you are responsible for the welfare of the entire country.

David

Iraq was Clinton's Vietnam, not Bush's.

I know I shouldn't laugh but this IS becoming really funny.

Seriously, every post is about Bill Clinton and if it isn't, then he still comes up anyway.

Billy must get awfully tired running around in you mind all the time!

Sorry.
I meant to say "what can you expect when someone like Bush Jr. is appointed president" in my comment above.

We know he wasn't "elected."

We know he wasn't "elected."

Who is we kimosabi?

David

The elected argument might be the most boring, tired, unnecessary and ignorant arguments out there. It was probably witty the first time.

If you are arguing that there was something fixed in Florida, ok. If you are commenting on the popular vote, then please go look up the electoral college.

If you would like to discuss the needs for the electoral college, we can get into that too. Simply saying that Bush "wasn't elected" is without teeth.

The elected argument might be the most boring, tired, unnecessary and ignorant arguments out there. It was probably witty the first time.

Whether it is boring, tired, unnecessary or ignorant, nevertheless, it is a sentiment held by millions.

For the most part my disillusionment came with both sides fighting to determine which votes to recount and which votes to not recount. How democratic. My disillusionment was further enhanced by the fact that the whole state at issue was Jeb Bush's. Can't get more non-partisan than that. And my disillusionment was sealed with the Supreme Court further disregarding the will of the people and choosing which votes to consider and which to toss.

Before that election, my family was Republican, and my own household was moderate with conservative leanings. Ever since then though, I have been able to see nothing but unethical administrative practices that go entirely against the platform that was campaigned, whether it is the dissolution of the separation of church and state, or the biggest deficit in American history (this from a party that runs on the platform of smaller government) to SCOTUS judges going hunting with case defendants, etc. ad nauseum.

Disregard it as tired, if you want. It is the sentiment of millions.

I understand it is held by millions. I am saying that it isn't meaningful. It is part of a company line. I am undecided as to who I am going to vote for this election. I am traditionally republican, but I am full of criticisms of George Bush.

The election thing is just part of the left-wing, liberal script and not meaningful like the things you mentioned, like the seperation of Church and State and the deficit, etc. I am not saying you shouldn't criticize Bush. I am saying that this particular argument is as meaningless as the right-wingers trying to deflect blame to Clinton.

if millions of people hold a sentiment, how can it be meaningless? What is the definition of meaningful, except that which means something to people?

I can find 1000 people who think Elvis is still alive.

Similarly to Craig, i don't know yet who i am going to vote for and I have many issues with Bush, but the "unelected" argument IS meaningless: we work with a system, via that system we arrrived at a winner, end of story - the winner is the president. You can't reject the result because you don't like the result. If I could do that I would reject both the '95 and '97 World Series results.

okay, that's a good point but I don't think it's a fair analogy unless Elvis was leading the country. Politics and administrations affect peoples lives, and well, I guess Elvis could too but when someone says something is meaningless, I just can't read any more into it than it is meaningless to that person.

I can find 1000 people who think Elvis is still alive.

Yeah, and do you wanna tell those people their sentiment is meaningless?

we work with a system, via that system we arrrived at a winner

The whole point of my posts is that millions don't agree with that statement, not just because who they wanted didn't win.

"The whole point of my posts is that millions don't agree with that statement, not just because who they wanted didn't win."

It is ONLY because they are unhappy their guy didn't win.

Like I said previously though, if you want to discuss the need for the electoral college, we can discuss that. But if you want to use the election results as a way to bash Bush, then it has no use to me as an undecided voter.

It is ONLY because they are unhappy their guy didn't win.

oh, and here for 4 years, I thought I was disgruntled at corruption. Thank you for letting me know I'm just a sore loser.

Iraq = Quagmire

Bush wasn't elected -vs- "It's the system, get over it" = Quagmire

~ NEXT!

This is a rather huge slice of rationalization pie, but a couple of observations, like Vietnam, the aggression against Iraq was based on a contrivance (Gulf of Tonkin) which however has taken less time to be exposed as a lie.

The big difference is that while in Vietnam, the US was propping up a corrupt puppet government and failed, in Iraq, the US is trying to install a corrupt puppet government and seems to be failing.

Now if only Haiti had oil, they'd have it made.


Oh, and Rwanda called and said on the 10th anniversary, thanks for nothing.

Two words: Gross oversimplification. Starting with the reasons the U.S. was in Vietnam. A neo-colonial, imperialistic war is presented as something it was not. I don't have time to say more at this point. But, there are other commenters on the thread who will break it down for you, Fatuous Flanagan.

As for the attack on Clinton, TBE from FF. (To Be Expected.)

Alliteration and acronyms, two things the internet doesn't have enough of.

"Fatuous Flanagan"


Day Two of the new House Rules.

Fatuous Flanagan

-----------------------
fat·u·ous
adj.
Vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish. See Synonyms at foolish.
Delusive; unreal: fatuous hopes.
-----------------------

Mac,

The ONE thing you have said of me over and over in the past few months is that I am CONSCIOUSLY deceptive. Yet now you use a word that labels me as unconsciously deceptive.

Perhaps you need to look some of these words up in the dictionary before you use them. I get the impression that they are too big for you.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Thanks.

David

in Iraq, the US is trying to install a corrupt puppet government and seems to be failing.

Is the German government a "corrupt puppet government," or Japan's government, or several other nations for that matter, all of whom we "installed"?

David

I began using "Fatuous Flanagan" before I had the complete picture of what the specimen would be publishing here. I do indeed now believe he is purposely deceptive. Therefore, future references with be to "Flatulent Flanagan."

Is the German government a "corrupt puppet government," or Japan's government, or several other nations for that matter, all of whom we "installed"?

Those were part of an Allied and UN effort, and there was a previous legitimate government. I think the comparison you are straining for is that of Indonesia under Sukarno or the Philipines under Marcos (which was prefaced by 300,000 killed as a result of the Spanish-American war in the last century).

However, you don't really care about what happens in Iraq, you are just trying to cover the tushy of your junta in the States. Tell me, do you have a passport?

How you answer that question will tell me much more than your provincial polemics.

Could I please note neither Germany or Japan support the Iraq blitz and occupation?

Mac,

You are hilarious! First you use words too big for you, then you start an elementary school-level name-calling contest. Thank you for your "fatuous" humor!

David

there was a previous legitimate government

Are you saying that the Nazi government in Germany was "legitimate"?!

I think you need to pay a little closer attention to history.

As for Germany's and Japan's support, you also need to pay more attention to recent events. The Japanese have troops in Iraq right now and the German government has vowed to support the new Iraqi government and to forgive some or all of the debt that Iraq owed.

David

I seek to please, Flatulent Flanagan. You asked for an updated nickname. I gave you one.

Are you saying that the Nazi government in Germany was "legitimate"?!

In that a State of War was officially declared, yes, and they were elected by many of the same methods later used in the States (there really hasn't been a legitimate election in the States since 1960). You really need to read "The Man In The High Castle".

However, with Iraq, you broke it, you bought it. Welcome to your 21st cent Lebanon.

There's a difference between support and "support". When I see German and Japanese mercenaries (won't be surprized to see Yakuza sub-contracters caught in a drug or oil deal gone bad) then yah, I'll see support. Right now, it seems to be a lot of "what do you mean "we" white man?".

I'll note you neither responded to the inquiry about the passport (I suspect you have never been anywhere that doesn't have ignorant 'murrican in it) or about how the situation is more akin to the US supported imperial kleptocracies in Asia ie - Indonesia and the Phillipines.

But then, you don't seem to be really comfortable with attempting ideas which don't fit within your polemics.

Mac,

Could you please point out exactly where it was that I asked for an "updated" nickname? And since you insist on elementary school-level ad hominem attacks I suppose I should give you an appropriate elementary school-style response:

Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me! ;-)

David

Did a quick Google, and Japan and Germany have said they would do something about Iraq, but like the Bush junta, saying something is all that matters.

They actually haven't done anything.

Of course, the Shrubites are too busy doing the cakewalk to do the real heavy lifting:

Given the World War II analogy that apparently guides U.S. policy for a transition to a stable, democratic, post-Saddam Iraq, what lessons might American policymakers draw from our "nation-building" experience in post-1945 Germany and Japan? The Bush administration's goal is to disarm Iraq. But it must make certain that Iraq never again troubles the stability of the Persian Gulf region. For this to happen, Saddam's ambitions to lead the Arab world in the "liberation" of Jerusalem must be utterly discredited, both in the eyes of his own people and of the world, especially the Arab world. This will probably require, as in Germany and Japan after 1945, an unambiguous military defeat of Baathist Iraq, followed by war crimes trials. The risk for the United States is that defeat, trials and a politique of "public shaming" may make Iraqis less, not more, receptive to a democratization process because Saddam has already effectively "de-Baathicized" his own people. Saddam's organizations of repressive state power must certainly be exorcised. In both post-war German and Japan, however the Allies discovered that, even though freed from SS, Gestapo, Kemptai and party supervision, entrenched government bureaucracies, in which alumni of the defunct ancien régimes continued to exercise their authority, remained wedded to authoritarian methods and hence proved remarkably resistant to the imposition of "democratic" ideas and practices.

I should point out, (before Flannelman (the right wing superhero!) tries to spread dis-info (his dad probably called it lying, but kidz these days, geez!) the above comes from the US Navy.

Mommy, it's raining!

No, dear, it's just Flannelman sprinkling dis-info, it only smells like pee.

Uh oh! Jimmy uses adjectives-:).

The G.O.P. maybe a terrorist best friend.
The emergence of Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil , Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski , retired general Anthony Zinni, and Big Media's associated and long-overdue new interest in how Shifty George handled al Qaeda and terrorism before and after 9/11, has clarified one thing: the Whitewatergate and Blue Dress hunting of Bill Clinton by the Republicans was more than just good clean American fun -- it may have cost us 3,000 American lives on 9/11, as well as 610 and counting in Iraq.

Bill Clinton was at best a C+ president. But, say what you will about Slick Willie, it is now crystal clear that Clinton and the Democrats during their eight years in power came to understand in a profound way the threat that fundamental Islamic terrorism in general, and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in particular, posed to America and American civilians.
In light of the new information shaken loose by Clarke and collaborated by others, it just cannot be denied that the Democrats in the White House had correctly analyzed the importance of the al Qaeda threat. It is also clear that while the Democrats took some good steps on terrorism, the chief reason they could not do more was political paralysis: the president was being hunted -- impeached, tried in the Senate, and attacked at every instant and in every possible forum by the rabid Republicans.

Who tried their best to keep President Clinton doing his job? There is a lot of blame to go around: Bill Clinton (he never should have bothered with Monica, and once he was caught, he should have 'fessed up); the congressional assassins like Tom DeLay, Lindsey Graham, and Bob Barr; the non-congressional right-wing tear-down artists, including and led by Richard Scaife, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, etc.; a number of federal judges, including a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, led by Nino Scalia, who allowed the Paula Jones civil suit to proceed while Bill Clinton was in office; Ken Starr; the big press, and specifically Time, Newsweek, and perhaps most of all, The New York Times.

But regardless who bears responsibility for the existence of Bill Clinton's travails, the fact is that these hyper-partisans put there extremist zealotry ahead of America's interest. In light of the Clarke revelations, it no longer can be argued that the reason the United States did not do more to combat terrorism is because the threat posed by al Qaeda was not fully understood by those in charge. Thanks to Clarke and Clinton's support the Whitehouse foiled/prevented several domestic terrorists plots and quicly found and prosecuted the first attempt at attcking the World Trade Center.

Let's give credit where it is due: who among us in 2000 recognized that the mass murder of large numbers of American civilians by Islamic terrorists was an inevitability? It wasn't Bush or Rice, they were probably on vacation. The number is small; it includes Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, who actually predicted this in their report to Congress; but guess what? It cannot any longer be denied that this small, far-seeing cadre of officials included Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and much if not all of the Democratic high command. Props to them for realizing the danger and wanting to do more. Who stood in their way? Reptilian attack dogs like Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, so blinded by their irrational hatred of the Clinton's they balked at any indication of foreign intervention by Clinton.
Let's remember that Bush Sr left Saddam in power, and both Slick Dick Cheney and Colin Powell thought they did the right thing.
As part of their mindless hunt and opposition to anything Clintonesque, the Republicans, simply put, opposed the Democrats' war on terrorism. In fact, one thing that makes looking back on this so particularly sad and painful is not only that Clinton and the Democrats in a deep way understood the danger of terrorism, yet were stymied from doing more by the politics of personal destruction, but also that the new president's team -- in addition to lacking such understanding -- indeed actively denigrated, downgraded, and belittled the Democrats' assessment that al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalists posed a grave security risk to the nation.

Bottom line: well before 9/11, the Democrats understood the threat posed by Osama, but the Republicans never did. Having failed to diagnose the disease in the first place, the Republicans still don't understand the nature of the sickness, and so they are now failing to treat it properly. George Bush has chosen at war with easy targets rather then fighting non-state affiliated terrorists, i.e. al qaeda. Bush has done nothing except create the next generation of fanatic west hating Islamic youths. Shifty George has tried to con america into thinking he has this big "bold" plan, when it's obvious to anyone, but his apologists that he and the Defense Policy Board are running the USS Clueless and using a made up war to shift our attention from the real issue, which is that we're stilll not safe at home: this country's seaports, airports, train system, and subways remain exactly as vulnerable as they ever were. The neo-con wet dream was attack Iraq, the Muslims would welcome us with open arms, embrace Israel, terrorism would stop and we'd all live happily ever after. What we got was a 50 year nightmare. At least half the Iraqi's hate us, Muslims still hate Israel, the number of terrorists and terror attacks has increased.
The number of American victims of terrorism has increased by 150% during Bush's watch, not including the Iraq/Afghanistan daily death tolls.
This is inexcusable. George Bush deserves to be fired, he sucks at fighting terrorism.

Jim,

"However, you don't really care about what happens in Iraq, you are just trying to cover the tushy of your junta in the States. Tell me, do you have a passport?

How you answer that question will tell me much more than your provincial polemics."

I do, what does that tell you about me?

I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and Canada. Had a great time in all of those places.

I've been to England, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and Canada. Had a great time in all of those places.

The CIA has the best summer student intern programme. However the point remains that the poster probably hasn't been outside of his protectorate.

But maybe that would be an ecumenical question -- oh, toilet duck!

How about we blame Bush, Sr. then? He didn't go after Saddam while he had the chance. Look, we created Saddam, he was our boy. Then, we decided he wasn't. Then, we had him completely locked down, no threat whatsoever, and we had the Bush cabal try to convince us that he was a threat to the entire world. Total B.S. We knew N. Korea and Iran were much bigger threats, but W and friends needed to go after the power and the oil and also to get re-elected.
Here's the problem: Before this war, terrorists weren't sure what they were capable of. Now they know that we can't win against them, and that's the way insurgencies win---not by winning outright, but by simply not losing.