"HK" wrote in message
. ..


It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch

On Jan 26, 7:44*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

. ..



It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

In 1998?

Eisboch

hurmph...

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch



Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

You fellows keep missing the real points.

One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, even before he presumed office, and it was the Bush Admin that
cooked the books to "justify" an invasion, it was the Bush Admin that
decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since.

And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab
world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas.

Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.





--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

On Jan 26, 7:55*pm, HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.

In 1998?

Eisboch

Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Because of Sandy Berger we will never know, could be he knew plenty
and did not have the nards to do what was right. So your point is
legitimatly debatable. What we do know is there was something worth
Berger's life and freedom that needed to be purged. For that much
risk, it must have been something big.


You fellows keep missing the real points.

One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, even before he presumed office,

Honestly debatable

and it was the Bush Admin that
cooked the books to "justify" an invasion,

Debatable

it was the Bush Admin that
decided to invade "light" of the necessary troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since.

An opinion you hold but still debatable. Before the war ever started I
said it would take a generation to end this war, 20 years. I remember
and you could probably google my analagy to the K*K here in the us,
who through mass communication and education, has been diminished to
no more than a pesky group of old diehards with no teeth... If we
continue to support freedom, spread the wealth (which means btw we
might have to all slim down a little (pretty progressive don'cha'
think?)), fundamentalist killers (these are not religeos men, no
matter what they say) can suffer the same fate. So again, are we
winning? Depends on your timeline, mine has always been a little more
forward looking if not as pleasant.. either way, it can succeed...


And what have we learned about Bush bringing "democracy" to the Arab
world? When you give them elections, they elect Hamas.

And Hamas will find itself in a positition of self advocacy, if they
only have free economys to deal with, they too will adapt. Look at
China


Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.

Again, debatable, and this time, I think you are in a very slim
minority in the view of legitimate scholors of presidential history...
which, snerk you are not...

--
Billary, the most sold out Whitehouse in history....

"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.



In 1998?

Eisboch



Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.



"You fellows keep missing the real points.

" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, ......"


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.



".... and it was the Bush Admin that cooked the books to "justify" an
invasion,"

For the same justifications outlined by the Dems in 1998. Who cooked the
books?




"it was the Bush Admin that decided to invade "light" of the necessary
troops to handle the
aftermath, and it has been the Bush Admin that has screwed up just about
everything in and about Iraq since."


Valid criticism, although it's tactical and not stragegic




Bush is the worst president in this country's history, and he's going to
prove it every day until he is out of office.

Keep repeating that Harry if it makes you feel good. Only history will tell
the real story.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
It's an absolutely honest answer. The Dems got their intel from the Bush
Admin.


In 1998?

Eisboch


Whatever information Clinton had in 1998 wasn't enough for him to decide
to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and set up an ersatz "democracy."

Yet most of the influencial Democrats in Congress promoted such action at
the time, a fact you seem to refuse to recognize.


"You fellows keep missing the real points.

" One of them is that it was Bush, not Clinton, that had the hard on to
invade, ......"


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before Bush
took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.



Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:


Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.


Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a
partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.

Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided with a
partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch





Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.

Oh...we haven't discussed Bush's real motivation for invading Iraq. It
was...political...of course.


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

Eisboch wrote:

Stop. Again, most leading Dems advocated such action well before
Bush took office.
The fact that Clinton didn't is somewhat of a mystery.

Maybe Bill didn't trust the intel. I wouldn't trust a word from certain
federal intel or police agencies, e.g., the FBI.

Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided
with a partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch





Because he thought doing so would be...stupid?

BTW, "advocating" sometimes is done for political posturing. You know
that, right?

The point remains.



The point remains that the whole damn thing is a massive screw-up and the
"blame" (if that's what it's called), should be shared equally between
political parties and administrations. I am not excusing Bush for screwing
things up, but I also don't believe for a moment that all the blame should
be directed to him or his administration.

That's one reason I respect Joe Lieberman. He was one of the Democrats,
pre-Bush, who talked about the threat Iraq posed and potential action. He,
unlike the rest of his Democratic associates who sang the same tune but now
waffle or deny, stuck to his guns.

Eisboch

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:56:22 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Yet most of the Democratic leadership at the time, well before Bush took
office, trusted the intel and advocated action. You've been provided
with a partial list. The names are very familiar.

Why didn't Big Bill do something?

Eisboch

A better question is, why are Republicans so slow? Clinton did attack
Iraq. On 12/16/98, he launched 200 cruise missiles at Iraq. What was
the Republican response? Clinton's "Wagging the Dog" to avoid dealing
with the Lewinsky matter. Fast forward 5 years, and the Republicans are
all on board invading Iraq. Clearly there were no political motivations
as this was a matter of national security, so one just has to assume
Republicans are slow.