BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

F*O*A*D

On 7/13/14, 11:17 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:13:06 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Precisely. Clinton talked about the problems with Iraq but was smart
enough not to invade it and stick around, while Bush was dumb enough to
be talked into invading Iraq and sticking around. Clinton was smart
while Bush was...Bush.

BTW, I don't *hate* Bush. Why do you conservatives toss that "hate" word
around so much? I think Bush was a total failure, a moron, and a man
easily manipulated by the neocons, but I don't hate him.

400 cruise missiles fired into suspected weapons facilities by Clinton
wasn't exactly "talking" about the problem. Plus, it wasn't just
Clinton. It was most of Congress and Clinton's entire Cabinet that were
warning of WMDs in Iraq and Hussein's increasing refusal to adhere to
the UN Resolutions agreed to after the Gulf War.

Clinton called Saddam "the greatest threat to peace" and, by signing
the "Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998, officially established a US policy
calling for regime change in Iraq.

Seems to me that the seeds for the invasion of Iraq were planted long
before Bush took office and the reasons for planting the seeds were
pretty much the same ones that you complain about so often today.

Harry keeps forgetting that his sweety, Hillary, was one of the
biggest supporters of that invasion, along with the rest of the neocon
democrats. The vote in congress was bi-partisan and very lopsided.

What I remember is that Clinton was not stupid enough to invade Iraq or
be talked into it by his veep. Bush was. Some of you fellas have a
difficult time differentiating between talk, talk, talk, and invade,
invade, invade.

--
Republicans . . . the anti-immigrant, anti-contraception, anti-student,
anti-middle class, pro-impeachment party that shut down the government
last year for no reason.