Democrats to Republicans: You were right!

**ZECH** · 03-29-2004, 08:24 AM

The 9/11 Hearings: We're All Bush Doctrine Believers Now
From The Wall Street Journal

Review & Outlook
March 26, 2004

Give President Bush's critics credit for versatility. Having spent months assailing him for doing too much after 9/11--Iraq, the Patriot Act, the "pre-emption" doctrine--they have now turned on a dime to allege that he did too little before it. This contradiction is Mr. Bush's opportunity to rise above the ankle biting and explain to the American public what a President is elected to do. …

In their eagerness to insist that Mr. Bush should have acted more pre-emptively before 9/11, the critics are rebutting their own case against the President's aggressive antiterror policy ever since. The implication of their critique is that Mr. Bush didn't repudiate the failed strategy of the Clinton years fast enough. …

Whatever lapses may have occurred in the eight months of his Presidency before 9/11, since that day Mr. Bush has had the courage to act, and forcefully. He has turned 20 years of antiterror policy on its head, going on offense by taking the war to the terrorists, toppling state sponsors in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now attempting to "transform" the Middle East through a democratic beachhead in Iraq. This is leadership.

Democrats now claim that any President would have responded this way, save for invading the "distraction" of Iraq. But would they really? Their strategy in power was to play defense and prosecute terrorists after they'd struck. Even Richard Clarke admits this. …

The idea that every President would have toppled the Taliban after 9/11 is also wishful thinking. The press at the time was full of hand-wringing about the dangers. The establishment consensus, even so soon after 9/11, was that the U.S. could end up bogged down in Kabul like the British and Soviets. President Bush is the one who took the risk of using force to rout the Taliban and the al Qaeda camps they were protecting.

All of this is what we ought to be debating this election year, not how selective Dick Clarke's memory is. Even if everything Mr. Clarke says is true--and he's already contradicted himself numerous times--it is beside the point. What matters is which strategy against terrorism the U.S. should pursue now and for the next four years. …

[A] President who takes the oath to protect America has to make difficult, often life-or-death, decisions based on imperfect information. In a world of terrorism and (still unsolved) anthrax attacks on the U.S. Capitol, a President doesn't have the luxury of waiting for French approval or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Iraq, the burden was on Saddam--a proven supporter of terrorists, user of WMD and enemy of America--to show he had destroyed the weapons we know he once had. He didn't, and so Mr. Bush acted to protect America and prevent another September 11.

**Rob_NC** · 03-29-2004, 09:59 AM

Good read. As was said, we should be looking at what Clinton didn't do in his 8 YEARS in office rather than what Bush didn't do in his 8 months in office.

**HoldDaMayo** · 03-29-2004, 10:00 AM

I'm not going to start a whole argument about this... and I agree wtih some of what is said in this article, especially about taking a stand and showing that your country doesn't report to useless red tape and rediculous world committees...

Few questions...

How did we know Saddam had WMD?
(because we gave them to him during the Iran issue)

Why is Saddam an enemy to the united states?
Because one minute we were giving them weapons, the next we were policing them

Proven supporter of terrorists?
This is debatable... and certainly there has been zero connections with Al-Quaida...

And on another note... it's important for people to understand that while the president did try and "do the right thing" in Iraq... there is much resistance and many of our boys are being killed not by terrorists... but by the everyday citizens of Iraq that don't want their country ran by the US... We would fight as hard if communist China was trying to run our country...

**Hanz29** · 03-29-2004, 10:43 AM

Under multiple resolutions due to the invasion of Kuwait and Iraq's use of those weapons it was Saddam who HAD to SHOW us he destroy the weapons- therefore, we can assume he did have them! Even under the previous administration- many, including Clarke made the claim that he had them- of course it was to support Clinton's futile attacks on Iraq after firing at U.N. planes. Furthermore, concessions were made to Iraq after countless renegotiations after breaking the resolutions- I ask you who profited? As we now know- keeping resolutions in place was making some in the U.N. rich b/c as the concessions were made to Hussein- more money (from the increased oil sales through concessions), was diverted to Hussein's military, and those appeasers in the U.N.

If you want to bring up who gave weapons and why- It was Reagan's attempt to stabilize and prevent the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran from taking control of the middle east- I love it how no one brings up the fact that Jimmy Carter is almost entirely responsible for creating the Iran we know today- Iran used to be an ally and the most pro-western government in the middle east, however, Jimmy Carter refused to help the Shah at the time, and allowed the fundamentalist Islamists to overthrow the government- YES- Carter let a so called ally lose his country (his flawed policy in 77-79 that threatened to cut off aid to Iran unless the Shah 'waited for unrest within his country to just dissipate' ) In this case, one country was empowered to balance the region and prevent the greater threat of Iran- just as Afghanistan was helped against the soviets.
On your final point- payments had been made on behalf of Saddam to families of terrorists- His previous actions, current development of weapons technologies, and obvious support of terrorist actions (through payment of families of terrorists)- proves he was a looming threat to the U.S.------stand by, and wait for him to attack- or get him now were our choices-
If we attacked, we assured a certain degree of safety- if we did not, and instead waited- like Clinton- we would have what we have now- the blame game....Damned if you do; damned if you don't

I think we made the right choice!

**I Are Baboon** · 03-29-2004, 10:46 AM

Eight more months until Election Day, which means eight more months of having to listen to this finger pointing, Monday morning quarterback shit.

**ALBOB** · 03-29-2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
How did we know Saddam had WMD?
(because we gave them to him during the Iran issue)

I'll agree, it's an embarrassment that we gave him these weapons, but the fact still remains that he DID have them. For anyone to say otherwise is rediculous.

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
Why is Saddam an enemy to the united states?
Because one minute we were giving them weapons, the next we were policing them

Hind sight is 20/20. We see a threat to our way of life and we eliminate it. Sometimes that comes back to bite us in the ass, Saddam is a case in point. I firmly believe it's better than the alternative, doing nothing.

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
Proven supporter of terrorists?
This is debatable... and certainly there has been zero connections with Al-Quaida...

How much more proof do you need?

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo there is much resistance and many of our boys are being killed not by terrorists... but by the everyday citizens of Iraq that don't want their country ran by the US

Where did that little tid bit come from? Everyday citizens? I completely disagree, the everyday citizens are overjoyed that they aren't under the constant threat of indiscriminant torture at the hands of Daddy Saddam and his two thug boys. They finally have reliable utilities. They finally have food. They finally have security. I completely agree that there's a long way to go but damn, Rome wasn't built in a day. Look how long it took to stabilize Europe after WWII.

**DFINEST** · 03-29-2004, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Eight more months until Election Day, which means eight more months of having to listen to this finger pointing, Monday morning quarterback shit.

OUCH!......

Did you just step on somebody's toe?

**Hanz29** · 03-29-2004, 11:01 AM

I'm wearing armor plated shoes!!~

**ZECH** · 03-29-2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by ALBOB
Look how long it took to stabilize Europe after WWII.

Just like the average american. Everybody wants everything NOW! They can't wait for shit! And yes I'm just as impatient as anyone.

**Big Smoothy** · 03-29-2004, 10:10 PM

I don't think G.W. should take the blam for 9/11. It was many agencies and previous years of not following these groups as vigilantly as possible.

The CIA didn't even have enought arabic speakers on it's roles....

But for the things that have happened *since* 9/11, is what I hold Bush accountable for.

**HoldDaMayo** · 03-30-2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by ALBOB
Where did that little tid bit come from? Everyday citizens? I completely disagree, the everyday citizens are overjoyed that they aren't under the constant threat of indiscriminant torture at the hands of Daddy Saddam and his two thug boys. They finally have reliable utilities. They finally have food. They finally have security. I completely agree that there's a long way to go but damn, Rome wasn't built in a day. Look how long it took to stabilize Europe after WWII.

You think the everyday citizens of Iraq... MUSLIM citizens, are happy about a CHRISTIAN nation like the US invading and taking over? These people don't even understand what freedom is... how are they supposed to appreciate it? You can't just take your way of life, shove it down their throat...

I agree that there's a chance that some good could come out of this... but you have to see the reality that there's also a chance it could blow up in our face... no pun intended...

I suggest you try watching something other than fox news...

**ZECH** · 03-30-2004, 07:34 AM

All the news media and outlets are very liberal. They want you to think nothing is going right.

**Rob_NC** · 03-30-2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo

I suggest you try watching something other than fox news...

Yeah, like CNN aka Clinton News Network

**austinite** · 03-30-2004, 08:12 AM

[i][b]
I suggest you try watching something other than fox news...

Funny how libs always try to slam fox. As if it's a problem having one conservative-leaning network amongst several liberal-leaning networks and newspapers. I say: "Thank God for Fox!"

**Big Smoothy** · 03-30-2004, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by dg806
All the news media and outlets are very liberal. They want you to think nothing is going right.

I agree dg.

I can't stand the liberal media.

And I also can't stand liberals.

Objective reporting has been lost.

**ALBOB** · 03-30-2004, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by HoldDaMayo
I suggest you try watching something other than fox news...

I'll do you one better, I get my news from the source. Having just finished a 22 year career in the Air Force I have BEEN to the places you've only seen on T.V. I still have friends serving IN COUNTRY. Every single day they send me letters of confusion about the difference between what we're fed by the media and what's ACTUALLY HAPPENING. I'm not giving you my opinion of how the Iraqi people feel, I'm telling you the facts. The everyday Iraqi citizen is happy that we got rid of Saddam and that we're re-building their country. You can do with that information what you want.

**ALBOB** · 03-30-2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Mr_Snafu
I agree dg.

Sorry for the interruption folks, I just had to look at this quote and say WOW! I guess we CAN get along.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-30-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Mr_Snafu
I agree dg.

I can't stand the liberal media.

And I also can't stand liberals.

Objective reporting has been lost.

Spoken like a true republican.

In all honesty, Bill Clinton is not running for president, so who cares what he did or didn't do. It seems everyone is trying to compare Clinton and Bush, but why? Let's look forward to the upcoming election and, more importantly, to Jesse The Body in 2008.

By the way, I have a friend who just came back from Iraq and his exact words were, "We are never going to get that shithole under control."

**oaktownboy** · 03-30-2004, 11:48 AM

i don't think bill clinton gets enough flack or shit that he should have had while he was in office. There were many things that he fucked up at, yet everyone where i live looks at him like God or something. stop blaming bush and look at clinton's foreign policy, his relationship with saddam

**ZECH** · 03-30-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by ALBOB
Sorry for the interruption folks, I just had to look at this quote and say WOW! I guess we CAN get along.

Did Hell just freeze over??

**Dale Mabry** · 03-30-2004, 12:41 PM

No, but Fishin season IS just around the corner.

**Stickboy** · 03-30-2004, 07:03 PM

I think the reason you have to look at the Clinton years is to put in perspective at what HE did to the CIA, and it's means for gathering intelligence.

I guarantee you, if Gore was in office we wouldn't have done shit, other than shoot a few 30 million dollar missles at some tents (which is what Clinton did).

Like Bush or not, it's about time we had a president willing to weild a big stick. Regardless of wether or not Iraq had WMD's - we were justified in invading just based on the security council resolutions. Saddam repeatedly broke them, although he signed the Gulf war accord to end that one.

As far as the news goes, I notice one thing about fox: they make mention of the good things going on over there as opposed to the other news networks that downplay that stuff and hype up all the negative things going on.

I wouldn't piss on CNN and some of the others if they were on fire. See, here's the deal: THEY WANT US TO FAIL IN IRAQ.

**Big Smoothy** · 04-01-2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by ALBOB
Sorry for the interruption folks, I just had to look at this quote and say WOW! I guess we CAN get along.

I am a Libertarian.

I hate Republicans. They are elitist spenders who do NOT believe in small government, individual choice, and limited spending.

I hate Democrats even more. They believe the government can do thngs better than the rest of us, and that if we give them more money better things can be done.

I am an even-keel person, and I believe I'm an even-keel poster, but when it comes to American politics and culture I do run a little hot at times.

As for the Iraq disaster, 5 Americans killed yesterday....

It's time for the coporate colonialists to get what's coming to them.

**Big Smoothy** · 04-01-2004, 06:23 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dale Mabry
Spoken like a true republican.

I hate conservatives, too.

**Hanz29** · 04-01-2004, 11:08 AM

Libertarianism is flawed in that it's philosophy is to let people do as they wish- No moral standards b/c the individual decides them- With a society there has to be an ultimate law and sets of social standards- Although you made no mention of wanting complete withdrawl of government, I'm assuming that you hold the belief that people should be able to do what they want w/o government interference- That policy would work if everyone was inherently good, however that is not the case, and laws put in place to judge good behavior and bad behavior are neccesary to maintain a successful society

**camarosuper6** · 04-01-2004, 12:54 PM

Im a conservative Republican. You must really hate me Mr_Snafu

BTW... Bill O'Reilly Rocks!

**Big Smoothy** · 04-02-2004, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by camarosuper6
Im a conservative Republican. You must really hate me Mr_Snafu

BTW... Bill O'Reilly Rocks!

No I don't "hate" you Camaro....not at all....I "hate" the actions of conservatives and liberals....not the people themselves.

Bill O'reilly has many good points that I like....I do believe that he is a hypocrite, and he treated Jenna Jamesen (the porn star) very badly on his show when she agreed to interview him. Then he admitted he watched her movies....he's typical: a hypocrite.

**oaktownboy** · 04-03-2004, 10:19 PM

yeah o reilly is one fuckin hypocrite..he also has guests on his show that make him look good and themselves bad

**Eggs** · 04-03-2004, 10:26 PM

"coporate colonialists"

Wow, did you read all the fucking brochures or what!

**Eggs** · 04-03-2004, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
By the way, I have a friend who just came back from Iraq and his exact words were, "We are never going to get that shithole under control."

My brother just got back from a year in a red zone in Bag... and he didnt mention anything of the sort.

Really we dont need to get it under control, we just need to take good enough care of it that the world wont bastardize us as much as they'd like to about going in and destroying the place and then leaving it the shithole that it was.

On the down side, our government seems to actually want to accomplish something by being over there so they might stay in for a while longer. Too bad, I'd originally hoped they would just go in, take out the leaders, and then let the locals kill each other off

Thread: Democrats to Republicans: You were right!

Thread Tools

Display

Democrats to Republicans: You were right!

Similar Threads

Ten Democrats Who Should Go Away

10 Republicans Who Should Go Away

Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds

Democrats vs. Republicans- Round 1

Democrats vote today, Republicans tomorrow

Posting Permissions