On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:49:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

I agree that the ramifications of removing Saddam were not clearly
understood, specifically the power struggle among the
religious/political sects, but I don't think any of that was clearly
understood during Clinton's watch either.

===

The ramifications were clearly understood by the Saudi's who tried to
warn Bush that deposing Saddam would lead to instability in the
region. They were right on the money with that call but no one in
Bush's advisory group understood the warning and it went unheeded.
Chalk it up to stupidity, brashness, naivete or whatever.

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.

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.

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

On 7/13/14, 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:33:57 -0400, 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.

You still have not answered the question. What do you think would have
happened if we did not depose Saddam?
Would you be happy if Bush let him stay? Do you think the Israelis
would have?

How long would we have tolerated Saddam rebuilding his nuclear
infrastructure? It is clear Europe was not going to stop him.


The Israelis would have assassinated him.

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

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

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 13:46:05 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:33:57 -0400, 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.

You still have not answered the question. What do you think would have
happened if we did not depose Saddam?
Would you be happy if Bush let him stay? Do you think the Israelis
would have?

How long would we have tolerated Saddam rebuilding his nuclear
infrastructure? It is clear Europe was not going to stop him.


The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

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

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

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

On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in
2016. We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White
House, and as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front
runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of
Ted Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and
that crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of
Repugnant ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.

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

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in 2016.
We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White House, and
as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of Ted
Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and that
crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of Repugnant
ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

On 7/13/14, 9:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
F*O*A*D wrote:
On 7/13/14, 7:06 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:19:18 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 6:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:59:21 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 7/13/14, 4:50 PM, wrote:

The Israelis would have assassinated him.

That would be harder to do than you seem to admit.


I didn't say or imply it would have been easy.

It is far more likely that they would have started a campaign of air
strikes and other stand off missions until this escalated into a real
war. Then the US would be faced with joining Israel and waging war
against half of the rest of the world, including countries we like to
call our allies.
World wars have started from far less.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?

We really don't have to. We will be able to see it play out again in
Iran. You better hope Hillary doesn't win or you may see the whole
process repeated.



I'm hoping Hillary or any other Dem who gets the nomination wins in 2016.
We don't need any of the bat**** crazy Repugnants in the White House, and
as far as can been seen, every one of the Repugnant front runners is bat**** crazy.

I've actually seen some Repugnants favorably discussing the ticket of Ted
Cruz and Allen West, and Ted Cruz and Herman Cain, and Ted Cruz and that
crazy old doctor whose name I cannot recall. Those sorts of Repugnant
ticket possibilities make us Dems smile.


Speculate away to fit your world view, eh?



You should look up the definition of speculate, d'ohboy. You obviously
don't know what it means.

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