• 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!

Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News

Iraq CANNOT be reasoned with "removing a despot" logic. I, as well as most of the country, refuses to believe that conveniently the lack of WMD's turned into a war on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as opposed to what it really was-- war hawking and political opportunism. "Well, he's killing alot of people, and Iraq wants democracy" will not phase me or anyone else with half a brain. Iraq is merely about nation building and wealth extraction, time will tell.

It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.
 
Now we have to deal with the monster Bush left us. :mrgreen:

And what is the Obama plan to do that, massive expansion of govt? Bush and the Democrat Congress left us with a mess and Obama and the Democrat Congress that helped create the mess. How is that working out for you
 
It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.

That is your opinion which you are entitled to and pure speculation as we will never know, just like we will never know what would have happened had Saddam Hussein remained in power without sanctions. Some people simply want someone else to blame on every issue. After November Obama will have the Republicans to blame again.
 
Let's face it, nothing that GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you support him.

Let's face it, nothing GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you say **** about him. :roll:

As for myself, Mr. Bush never did anything that I found worthy of supporting. I do think he's been an entirely excellent former president, however.

Bottom line here, you're completely wrong about your insistence that no resources were diverted from Afghanistan to attack Iraq. Do you ever research the junk you spew before spewing it?

Had Bush gone fully into Afghanistan to win

"Fully?" So you think Bush used our presence Afghanistan as little more than a stepping stone to invade and occupy Iraq, too?

you would have complained about the loss of civilian life.

Nope. Unlike some, who believe our invading forces will be "greeted as liberators," I'm realistic about wars. I recognize not only that innocent people will die, but also that you can't split up your resources and expect to achieve any sort of realistic success on two separate and unrelated fronts. You either go in with everything you've got and stay there till the job is done, or you fail.

He did was was politically correct

Invading and occupying another nation that was no real threat to the US is "politically correct?" :rofl Who knew?

the fact is he went into Iraq with the same attitude, to protect civilian life.

Riiight. That's why Bush invaded Iraq. But what about the rest of the excuses the Bush administration offered for invading Iraq?

We've got the ZOMG! Weapons of Mass Destruction! rationale, the ZOMG! Iraqi Links to Terrrist Organizations! rationale, the Combating Terrrizm! rationale, the Bringing Democracy to the Middle East rationale, the Establishing a Long-term Middle East Military Presence rationale, the Divine Inspiration rationale, the Preemption of Terrrist Ties rationale...

:doh

He cannot win with you so why should anyone try to convince you he wasn't as bad as you believe?

He can do no wrong with you, so why should anyone try to convince you he's not as awesome as you believe?

I'll tell you why. Because a closed mind is a terrible thing to have. ;)
 
"Fully?" So you think Bush used our presence Afghanistan as little more than a stepping stone to invade and occupy Iraq, too?

I think they call that a "Freudian slip". :2rofll:
 
I'm not going to read what is most likely a very partisan book. I've read, from multiple accounts, the political history of afghanistan, and to state that I have no knowledge or I need to read a book when I know almost everything there is to know about Afghani history is ill-founded

The open minded Lib.
Never open to letting facts trickle through their cast iron skulls.

No intellectual curiosity. Not even from the guy who was running the show.

As you were... MIND WIDE SHUT.
 
errrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 
Yeah, we can afford to flush several trillion dollars down the toilet on war spending.:roll:

That the one area we can spend as defined in our documents.

There is nothing about a Federal Socialist State.
Nada.

.
 
That the one area we can spend as defined in our documents.

There is nothing about a Federal Socialist State.
Nada.

.

You might want to read the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Only a fool could justfy wasting trillions in the phoney name of defence.
 
Last edited:
You might want to read the constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Only a fool could justfy wasting trillions in the phoney name of defence.
You've proven that you have abolutely no understanding of our constitution.
BTW, look up the word 'promote'.
 
Glinda;1058490030]Let's face it, nothing GW Bush did or does is ever going to make you say **** about him. :roll:

Who said Bush was awesome? He just wasn't as bad as you and others claim and the facts support me.

As for myself, Mr. Bush never did anything that I found worthy of supporting. I do think he's been an entirely excellent former president, however.

BEA.gov, BLS.gov. paint a different picture as does my bank account

Bottom line here, you're completely wrong about your insistence that no resources were diverted from Afghanistan to attack Iraq. Do you ever research the junk you spew before spewing it?

The U.S. Military can walk and chew gum at the same time. Resources were diverted to Iraq but were replaced by NATO. You remember NATO? The left wanted an international contingent there and Bush gave them one.


"Fully?" So you think Bush used our presence Afghanistan as little more than a stepping stone to invade and occupy Iraq, too?

Does it matter now? By a huge majority the Congress authorized Iraq and for that say it was because of Bush lies, that is a lie. Congress had the same intelligence as Bush.

Nope. Unlike some, who believe our invading forces will be "greeted as liberators," I'm realistic about wars. I recognize not only that innocent people will die, but also that you can't split up your resources and expect to achieve any sort of realistic success on two separate and unrelated fronts. You either go in with everything you've got and stay there till the job is done, or you fail.

Hindsight is always 20/20 but so is reacting. You can blame Bush for civilian deaths but then fail to acknowledge the rules of engagement in Iraq designed to prevent civilian deaths.

You can also ignore how brutal Saddam Hussein and his sons were and ignore what they would be like with sanctions removed. Think we could have kept sanctions forever? What then?

Invading and occupying another nation that was no real threat to the US is "politically correct?" :rofl Who knew?

Invading and occupying a country that funded, harbored, and supported terrorism and was working on WMD was the right and prudent thing to do.

Riiight. That's why Bush invaded Iraq. But what about the rest of the excuses the Bush administration offered for invading Iraq?

You mean like the excuses in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Did you read the resolution passed by Congress in October 2002?

We've got the ZOMG! Weapons of Mass Destruction! rationale, the ZOMG! Iraqi Links to Terrrist Organizations! rationale, the Combating Terrrizm! rationale, the Bringing Democracy to the Middle East rationale, the Establishing a Long-term Middle East Military Presence rationale, the Divine Inspiration rationale, the Preemption of Terrrist Ties rationale...

:doh

I have posted the links here supporting those contentions along with the Democrat responses supporting those contentions. It was a bipartisan agreement to do it.

Now here we are 8 years after that decision and 7 years after the invasion and you and others are still bitter over it. Why? I had three family members serve in Iraq for at least a year and they said we did the right thing. What is it you know that they don't?

He can do no wrong with you, so why should anyone try to convince you he's not as awesome as you believe?

I'll tell you why. Because a closed mind is a terrible thing to have.

GW Bush could do wrong by me and did on Immigration Reform and the TARP bailout.

On National security and most of the economy he did well and that is why I voted for him twice.
 
You've proven that you have abolutely no understanding of our constitution.
BTW, look up the word 'promote'.

Somehow the word promote to a liberal means provide yet these are the ones who claim that conservatives are not very bright.
 
It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.

No. First off, neoconservatives are hard to pin down. Second of all, some foreign policy neoconservatives for one reason or another (and we can list numerous reasons) have been critical of the George W. Bush administration (during its action) for its handling of the Iraq war. Third of all, remember that foreign policy neoconservatives were supportive of the Clinton administration's efforts in the Balkans. Fourth, many foreign policy neoconservatives were applauding on the notion that the Obama administration was to provide extensive support of the Afghanistan campaign (now, we cannot deny that various speakers were critical during the iffy moments in the past year). It is not quite as if once the Democrat gets into power, neoconservatives shut off their support or criticism.
 
Last edited:
It would have been real interesting to see what these neocon responses would have been had a democratic president gotten us into the Iraqi quagmire. They would have crucified him.
You know you're in trouble when Glinda thanks you. Seeing that this is totally hypothetical, we would only be worried that a Democrat would **** up the campaign.

You should try an anger management program before you get a heart attack.
 
Silly me...



snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

Spin that anyway you want..... they did. :lamo

No matter how you spin it, taking iniatives to create the internet does not mean inventing it. The truth is Al Gore had a great deal to do with the creation of the internet as we see it today. Without his work it may not ever have happened.
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/misc/funny/gore,net.txt
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology]Al Gore and information technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed
telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the
improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official
to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact
than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily
forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial
concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even
earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as
we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still
in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided
intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential
benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he
sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in
areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural
disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks
into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with
officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured
the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in
1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education
Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the
spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as
well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies
that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for
continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private
sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of
extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today,
approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore
provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the
Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven
operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid
growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political
support for its privatization and continued support for research in
advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more
intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving
Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this
effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value
of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and
consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American
citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom