Reality Is Now Setting In For America... It Was All Based On Lies & Ignorance
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
Like I said in another thread, only the low information crowd ever believed it anyway. Too bad there are so many of them. Maybe intelligence should be a requirement of voting after all.
I don't know about intelligence, but proof that you pay taxes and don't accept government aid (other than social security or medicare that you've paid into until you're legally able to utilize it) should be used to determine whether or not you have a right to vote.
I'm sorry, but I've said it time and time again, non-taxpayers should not have the ability to decide how taxes are used/distributed.
Last edited:
The question should not be whether she's lied! It should be, has she ever told the TRUTH. Most politiciansWell, we know Hillary's never lied.
do not know what truth even means.
"I did NOT have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," said Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton.
He actually used the term "sexual relations" in explaining what he did and didn't do with "that woman." In one of the greatest legal obfuscations of any president.
I always thought he worded it that way to say he was addressing Miss Lewinsky, and saying he didn't have sex with "that woman", who happened to be some random woman in the room.
Uh oh. "An inconvenient truth" applies here, to borrow a phrase of one of the Grand Liars.
Last edited:
Let me tell you why this objection always amuses me: for three solid years (since he was the leading candidate) all I heard was how insanely dumb George W Bush was. Democrats made this charge over and over and over again. Bush was dumb. Yet the same folks saying that now want me to believe that Kerry and Hillary (who we both hear are smart) were even dumber than Bush - they got fooled by a complete idiot.
I mean, who is dumber - the dummy or the dummies who follow the dummy?
And apparently, Bill Clinton is among the dummies himself:
February 6, 2003 (BEFORE the invasion):
KING: OK. Iraq. You, I imagine, saw Colin Powell yesterday. Did he make a good case? What do you think?
CLINTON: Well, I think he made a good case. He always makes a good case. But the most important thing he said from the point of view from the United Nations is that we had intelligence and photographs which seemed to prove that Iraq was almost taking these chemical stocks, at least, out of the backdoor while the inspectors were going through the front door, that they were moving things.
And if that's true, it means Mr. Blix and his inspectors might never get to do the job that they were appointed to do. So I think that we need to listen to Blix, listen to the Secretary Powell and I still hope the United Nations can act together on this and I think there's still a chance we can.
And, you know, there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm.
KING: You support the president?
CLINTON: I think that he's doing the right thing now.
I guess now I'm supposed to believe that Bill Clinton cooked the books on intelligence, too.
Now make no mistake: I OPPOSED the invasion of Iraq in 2003, so this is not some conservative-liberal thing with me. I was not persuaded by the "logic" used to make the case - e.g. that if we didn't do something then Hussein was going to destroy us. But let's drop once and for all the old, "The administration lied to us" argument because it makes the people saying it sound absolutely stupid. You wanna know why so many Democrats voted FOR the resolution? If you'll recall correctly (and I most certainly do), they were losing on the campaign trail in 2002. They barely controlled the Senate (thanks to Jeffords jumping in 2001) and the GOP had the House. They were facing a possible loss of power so they opted to "get the issue off the table" by having a vote on it. It was voted on October 11, 2002 to get it out of the public mind (remember, Bush was rather popular in the whole national security thing at the time).
If they voted "for" it and didn't mean it - they're even worse than Bush in my view. Plus, note that pretty much every leftist planning on running for the Presidency voted FOR it because they didn't want to be seen as "soft" on national defense. If the war went bad, they already had their excuse lined up - they'd just say the Republicans lied to them. Note that to this day neither Kerry nor Hillary has come out and called their vote for the resolution a "mistake" or "wrong." John Edwards did and Barack Obama (his nose growing as he speaks) claims he would have voted for AGAINST it - easy to say when there's no way you'll ever have to prove such a claim.
Furthermore, you have the night Clinton called up "Larry King" when Bob Dole was on there for his 80th birthday. Clinton AGAIN supported Bush, even minimizing Bush's uranium line by basically saying "everybody makes mistakes."
Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.
"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"
Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.
So was Bill Clinton lying? I mean, it wouldn't be the first time. The man who had access to the intelligence specifically addresses it. So can we drop the whole "the administration lied and the Democrats (were stupid and) believed it" partisan take?
I reiterate: I opposed the invasion from day one because I didn't feel a sufficient case was made and the logic didn't add up. So it's not a partisan thing with me, I just get sick of the excuses all the way around.
As far as the OP: politicians are demagogues trying to advance themselves. They set up bogey men about how we used to be great and aren't now. It is ultimately self-serving and appeals to nationalist instincts. That's it for now.
Edited to add: let me be blunt here, anyone who tries that argument while running for President is not getting my vote and can expect my active opposition. Say you messed up - if you won't say that BEFORE taking office then you may not be all that good IN office, if you're that incapable.
You missed my point a bit. In some ways Bush was also a victim of this lying/mis-characterization/wishful thinking, whatever you want to call it. Neo-cons in the administration wanted to seize the moment to push their agenda - finishing what was started in the 1st war in Iraq. Thats what they wanted and unfortunately thats what they got. Saying Clinton, Kerry, whoever, supported it too, doesn't change the situation.
Okay. You said...
In response to:
Although I've had enough interactions with you through the years to know you are not one of the down-the-line leftist quoters (e.g. a "true believer"), this sounds a lot to me like, "Yeah, Democrats supported it but only because they got lied to by Bush."
So my response was to that.
An interesting take, and I think I agree with you up to a point.
I concur that the WMDs cover was essentially a pre-text to finish off Desert Storm. We should have known from Yugoslavia that this was a bad idea. One reason the first Pres Bush has said they did NOT remove Hussein from power was because he kept some stability over there and was "respected" (for lack of a better word) by the other Middle East nations. It's one of those "he may be a dictator but he's our dictator" type things.
It doesn't change THAT situation but there was no specific reference to that above. So thank you for clarifying. For the record, I said when Bill Clinton came out in favor of it (told the soon-to-be-ex) that this was designed to pose Hillary as a hawk for when she sought the Presidency. The whole thing never passed the smell test to me. And btw - since Earle was talking about this with the Muslims over on another thread - that whole patriotism thing was another sore spot with me. There was an implication that if you didn't support the Iraq Invasion in 2003 that you were somehow unpatriotic - as a military veteran at the time at risk of going over there, I did not appreciate the characterization at all. (There simply was no imminent threat to freedom or security that mandated a national emergency or invasion). It's no different than the sudden change that occurred on January 20, 2009 - when questioning your government went from being patriotic to racist.
Fact is that both Clintons and Kerry supported a war with Iraq; if they didn't, they should have voted "no" like Paul Wellstone did and been willing to suffer the consequences (e.g. lose your office on the basis of conscience). I don't know that Wellstone and I ever agreed on a single issue other than that......but I surely respected him for that vote. (Sadly, he died two weeks later when Dick Cheney blew up his plane, er, his plane crashed)
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 9
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-