I rather have them (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al) 'there' ruling
'them' than 'here' ruling 'us'.
And they can take Kerry and his buddies Schumer and Lautenberg with them.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
"starlord" wrote in
And why in the world would you think that Kerry would have done anything
different after 9-11? Kerry voted against removing Saddam from Kuwait after
his invasion,even WITH approval and contributions from France and Germany.
Kerry likely would have done what Clinton did;fire a few cruise missiles
and consider the 'nuisance' dealt with.
It remains to be seen whether Saddam had WMDs.I believe he shipped them to
Syria. Besides,most every world leader believed that Iraq had WMDs.
Yes,the minute bush got into office,he started a war.Sorry,but that's not
the case.He acted where the last President failed to.(WTC *ONE*,Khobar
Towers,USS Cole,coupla US embassy bombings)
And you are mistaken on this.
Here I agree with you.
Although DemocRATs have a bad record of not allowing the other side to say
their piece. They celebrated F-911,but tried to censor Stolen
Honor,attacked Repub HQ's,slashed Bush supporter's tires,other acts of
vandalism. Conservative speakers routinely get shouted down at colleges,and
the colleges say and do nothing about it.
Not invading Iraq would have been a bad thing?
That notion might have had some merit if it weren't
for the fact that we seem to have made such a muck-up
of the subsequent occupation that any actual reasons
("threat of WMD", "we're all better off without Saddam",
"preventing spread of terrorism", or whatever...) why
it was supposedly such a good idea to invade in the
first place basically don't _count_ anymore.
Personal opinion. I understand in advance you disagree.
Forcing democracy on a (invasion and first strike minded) dictatorship
is a good thing. Sorry.
I guess you have to stop wiping your chin :-)
1. Regime change
2. UN resolutions
The remainder of excuses were political BS I agree.
Clinton did some sensational things for the market. Welfare to work for
one. He did preside over irrational exuberance in the stock markets,
which would have been great if his fed appointee didn't intentionally
crash it and vaporize some 70% of the nation's accumulated stock wealth
in a year or so. I know plenty of retired folks that lost decades of
accumulated money from actual, hard, physical labor.
Clinton governed on promises of pension value maintenaince. That was one
HUGE promise to break. Unforgiveable.
The good news for Democrats is a whole bunch of folks suddenly became a
whole lot more dependent on the government all of a sudden. oops,
welfare was inviscerated. darn.