posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:18 PM
Wow guys, I mean big time, serious, awestruck WOW. You've totally pegged the needle on my partisanturdfling-o-meter.
Ape, this thread may be about slagging democrats as hypocrites, but that doesn't obligate all posts within to agree with the premise, and given the
title, it's hardly off topic to respond to the ridiculous notion that Bush didn't lie.
"Tax to the max" on the other hand, is to this thread as the sleeping habits of colorless green ideas are to the average life expectancy of a
Yes, Saddam was a tyrant. Yes he tortured people. Yes he provided aid and comfort to some terrorists. No they weren't the terrorists we had most
cause to be concerned about. He paid for suicide bombings, he harbored certain groups which were useful to him against traditional enemies such as
Israel and Iran, but Bin Laden wasn't in Iraq, nor was any infrastructure of use to Bin Laden.
Bin Laden was in Pakistan, creating problems in the only nuclear state with a majority muslim population, but we wouldn't do anything about it
because US troops crawling all over Afghanistan and Pakistan might have destabilized Musharaff (kind of circular logic if you ask me- We don't want
to destabilize Pakistan so we can't go there to attack a radical, destabilizing terrorist group which is gaining credibility there at our
Democrats: You were in many regards, though not necessarily all, right about this war. The elected officials whom you support weren't willing to burn
any political capital backing you up a month before an election though. How did the Democratic voters respond to that? They gave the senate seat of a
murdered war opponent to a Republican! Paul Wellstone would roll over in his grave.
The Democratic Party went below and beneath the call of decency by not only failing to exercise the party discipline necessary to stop the war, but by
letting so many of their people go that it virtually gave the war a mandate. No amount of Bush being a liar changes the fact that a slim Democratic
majority gave him an overwhelming go ahead. The fact that 9/11 and Iraq weren't linked is nice, but that's the kind of thing that I want my
representatives to figure out BEFORE we vote on a policy. You're going to have to live with the fact that your party acted that stupidly and you
didn't send a clear message at the polls a month later.
Republicans: Just Hillary Clinton turned out to be a duplicitous hawk hiding behind a slightly butch liberal aura doesn't mean that your people are
off the hook. Your president belonged to the people who wanted this war long before 9/11. What were his priorities on 9/11?
1. Read children's books.
2. Ground air traffic.
3. Exempt wealthy arabs from #2.
4. Issue orders to start drawing a list of targets, saying "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Related and not."
5. Figure out how to get Afghanistan out of the way as fast as possible, regardless of how ineffective the strategy might be, so that we can "sweep
it all up. related and not." instead of spending too much time on doing the primary job right and getting Bin Laden.
He lied. Period. If what Bill Clinton did was close enough to be called sex, then what Bush did was certainly close enough to be called a lie.
Gettin' your chain pulled is sex, and pulling the American people's chain is lying, end of story.
This finger pointing is ridiculous. Neither partisan side has a leg to stand on. One can only stand in awe of the way that both Republicans and
Democrats fiddled while American foreign policy burned to the ground, then BOTH had the audacity to try and blame one another and spin the facts this
way and that.
Both parties tollerated Saddam for far too long. There was a time for dealing with Saddam: 1992. Shame on B41 and to a lesser extent shame on Clinton
for not correcting the mistake.
When they got around to doing to little too late, they did it in the most ridiculously inept way imaginable, with both sides lying, pretending to
believe lies, and concealing inconvenient facts to make it happen.
The way I see it, it shouldn't be Republicans and Democrats who are most at odds over all of this stuff- it should be all of us at odds with our
leaders. Afterall, I don't see a tremendous amount of defense being played here, just a lot of unspoken acceptance of accusations, quickly followed
by counter accusations. So implicitly, there seems to be a concensus that both parties did their Rex Grossman impression (for those of you who don't
watch football, that is to say they dropped the ball).
OK, I'm done ranting. Let me get my fire extinguisher and you can all come after me.