I remember clearly when the Republicans smelled blood in their pursuit of Clinton (of course they vehemently denied that it was a "smear campaign" as they fervently believe that phrase only applies to Democrats) they made the statement over and over and over that if the President lies, he is therefore a liar, and you can't trust anything he says. Now, of course, it suits them to put a different spin on just that. Gotta love the flip-flops.
And how does this have anything to do with Iraq?? Remind me again who armed Ossama and Saddam? Thought so. Liberals seek real solutions and long-term security, while the neo-cons seek only immediate satisfaction.
Asked and answered a few hundred times on ET alone, by now. Dealt with in numerous recent posts on this very thread, as a matter of fact. Other than for a few Stingers and some odds and ends left over from the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, Osama and his people mainly depended on his personal wealth and on extensive support from Saudis, Pakistanis, and various "charities" and other front groups. As for Sasdam, it's also been gone over on ET and elsewhere as well, but the deologically blinded never seem to get the message: Saddam was mainly armed by the Soviet Union: Or do you believe was a secret T-55 production line hidden somewhere in Michigan? He received substantial additional support from France, Germany, and China. Britain was also a supplier, at times, at a somewhat lower level. Total US contributions to Saddam's military is estimated at about 1% of the total foreign contribution. And, if the US had been a main or even the sole supplier and sponsor of Saddam, what difference would it have made except to increase our moral responsibility to deal with him? Is that what you thought? If not, maybe you should try informing yourself on the subjects. Real solutions? Like, what? Shooting a few cruise missiles in their general direction then forgetting about it? Leaving avowed enemies of the United States to their own devices? Passing UN resolutions? Long-term security? How? By depending on the Europeans? By trying real hard not to hurt anyone's feelings, make anyone envious, or scare anyone unduly?
You know, to someone who is in love with neither Bush or Clinton, looking objectively, it is pretty clear to see that both parties use the same tactics when it serves their interest. Remember the election of 2000? When things were going the way of the Democrats the Republicans cry foul, and reverse when things went well for the Republicans, the Democrats cry not fair. All the same M.O., just different ideologies. No wonder so many Americans don't even bother to vote any more.
How you can get this from what I posted is beyond me. I "all but come out and admit Bush lied?" I said they no doubt emphasized the facts most favorable to their case. That is called advocacy, building support for your position, leadership in short. Lying is when you run on a political platform of opposing the "worst economy in 50 years" when the objective facts are clear that your charges are not true. Lying is when you say your opponents want to dismantle Medicare, when you know they do not. Lying is when you say your opponents want to poison the environment, when that is false. Bush's opponents have such a track record of lying that it is hard to take them seriously when they accuse him of lying, particualrly when they have nothing in the way of facts to support their allegations. For them, it is all about short term political advantage. As famously remarked, "politics ain't beanbag", but one would hope for more in the way of character, patriotism and principle at a time when we have troops getting killed daily. As in Vietnam, the steady drumbeat of negativism from the opposition can't help but give encouragement to the Saddamites that we will once again cut and run if they can kill enough soldiers.
And how does this have anything to do with Iraq?? Remind me again who armed Ossama and Saddam? Thought so. Liberals seek real solutions and long-term security, while the neo-cons seek only immediate satisfaction. __________________ -tatertrader _ _______________________ This is a perfect example of what I mean by going our own ways and betting on our own which way is best. I don't believe for one minute in your position and see no reason why I should have to pay for it and you should have the same priviledge but we shouldn't be tied together.
Again - repetition and reassertion are your only resort. The facts simply do not support your position no matter how many times you try to evade that simple truth. Who armed and trained the Afghan militias? Who invested them with the misguided belief that they could take on and defeat a superpower? Who left them armed to the teeth yet politically and economically isolated? http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html/current/msg11499.html Funny, I don't recall rusting T-55's or grounded Mirage jets counted among the "weapons of mass destruction" inventoried during Bush's SOTU speech, nor during Powell's address to the UN? We do know however where his first chemistry set and sea-monkey farm came from: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/