• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Liberal Slant Confronted By Fed Up Conservative

BWG said:
One would hope that he had extensive training in the subject, or at least listen to the advice of one that had. That's leadership. ;)

Well as far as I know, Bush is letting the generals run the war.
 
Alias said:
Well as far as I know, Bush is letting the generals run the war.

Actually, it would seem as the insurgents are the ones who are running the war. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", they didn't.
 
Alias said:
Well as far as I know, Bush is letting the generals run the war.

Ah yes, the pass the buck president in operation. Rather than standing up and taking the heat for his decisions in Iraq, he lamely tries to blame the generals. It's always someone else's fault with him, isn't it?


And I thought the President was the CiC?
 
Iriemon said:
I love this ... those in charge right now have the balls to send us into unpopular wars ...


The conventional thinking since the first Gulf War has been that any president who goes in and tries to take out Saddam will end his career in doing so. Bush was very aware of the likelihood that this would be too unpopular for it not to destroy his re-election hopes.

Clinton put his own career over our national security. Bush did the risky thing because it was right. Bush has balls, Clinton doesn't. Clinton's blatent career-obssessed spinelessness also made 9/11 possible.
 
aquapub said:
The conventional thinking since the first Gulf War has been that any president who goes in and tries to take out Saddam will end his career in doing so.

First I've heard of this. Why was that so? Saddam was so popular in America?

Clinton put his own career over our national security. Bush did the risky thing because it was right. Bush has balls, Clinton doesn't. Clinton's blatent career-obssessed spinelessness made 9/11 possible.

Bush wasn't doing the risky thing politically; his popularity post 9-11 was sky high. The Iraq invasion was very popular at the time. The American people were mad about 9-11, and like a lynch mob, the country was ready to hang the guy who the sheriff said did it; to hell with a trial. And now we are like the lynch mob who woke up the next morning, finding out they hung the wrong guy.

It was only "risky" in the foolish sense -- Bush went ahead with the invasion even though they knew there was no hard evidence backing up the WMD claims; he rushed into war on the bet the troops would find WMDs. It was a stupid gamble, and now we are paying the consequences. Tens of thousands have died, Iraq is destabilized with a determined resistance against our occupation, and we have no credibility -- the Muslem world views our country with complete mistrust. And rightly so.
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
The conventional thinking since the first Gulf War has been that any president who goes in and tries to take out Saddam will end his career in doing so. Bush was very aware of the likelihood that this would be too unpopular for it not to destroy his re-election hopes.

Clinton put his own career over our national security. Bush did the risky thing because it was right. Bush has balls, Clinton doesn't. Clinton's blatent career-obssessed spinelessness also made 9/11 possible.

Maybe that is the republican national convention-al thinking. The real world was concerned about destablizing the Middle-East. What do you really think would have changed in Clinton's career if he invaded Iraq? He would still be doing the same thing today regardless. Conservatives cried "wag the dog" with Kosovo. Imagine if he wanted to invade Iraq what they would have said then. Hell, they never gave him credit for anything. He fired missiles to distract from the investigation is what they said. Never once did the partisan hacks ever treat him like the POTUS.

Clinton has balls. It took $40,000,000.00 for Ken Starr to find that out. Reagan made 9-11 possible. Bush doesn't have balls, he is an idiot. Is it bravery or stupidity that would get a person to cross 10 lanes of traffic blindfolded?
 
Let's see,with Nbc owned by General Electric and Cbs by Westinghouse,two huge defense contractors,I can't really see the liberal slant that you refer to.The war is a disaster,and that is what is reported,How can that be a liberal slant?I guess that you must believe that Vietnam could have been one with the right press coverage.We invaded a sovriegn nation without UN backing ,on lies fabricated by the neocons to advance their agenda.Please don't forget that Donald Rumsfield met with Saddam Hussein and even provided the maniac with weapons.This is reality and not some liberal slant;I bet Viacom is all leftist radicals too huh?That corporation owns ABC and they can't compete with the journalistic integrity of someone truly conservative like say,Rupert Murdock or Rush Limbaugh.
 
Iriemon said:
First I've heard of this. Why was that so? Saddam was so popular in America?



Bush wasn't doing the risky thing politically; his popularity post 9-11 was sky high. The Iraq invasion was very popular at the time. The American people were mad about 9-11, and like a lynch mob, the country was ready to hang the guy who the sheriff said did it; to hell with a trial. And now we are like the lynch mob who woke up the next morning, finding out they hung the wrong guy.

It was only "risky" in the foolish sense -- Bush went ahead with the invasion even though they knew there was no hard evidence backing up the WMD claims; he rushed into war on the bet the troops would find WMDs. It was a stupid gamble, and now we are paying the consequences. Tens of thousands have died, Iraq is destabilized with a determined resistance against our occupation, and we have no credibility -- the Muslem world views our country with complete mistrust. And rightly so.
Only about 55% of the US was in favor of regime change when it was being done.
 
Back
Top Bottom