About Us

F*O*A*D

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us