On 7/13/2014 11:45 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 12:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/13/2014 11:33 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 11:10 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 08:47:04 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:
The big difference is that while Clinton talked the talk, Bush
walked
the walk.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
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.
Clinton was extremely lucky that his term was over in 2001 instead of
2002 or he would have been placed in the position of having to back up
his rhetoric or back down.
Al Gore lights a candle every day thanking the SCOTUS for Bush v Gore.
How do you think things would have worked out if Saddam was still in
Baghdad?
The apologeticas for Bush just never end. 
They will end as soon as the lefties stop blaming Bush and Co. for
everything they determine as being wrong with the country and realize
that hindsight is 20/20. Serious mistakes have been made throughout
history by representatives of both parties. It doesn't mean that at the
time, with the information available, they weren't trying to do what
they thought was best or right.
Bush left this country in ruins in many ways. It is going to take a
long, long time to fix his damage.
Once the campaigner in chief steps down the process will begin.
--
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of
taking care of them".
Thomas Jefferson