Gtech: What I read out of this is you like to blame Democrats for everything. How Dumb. It is the ultimate in partisinship. You claim Democrats wanted the war in Iraq and Bush gave it to them. You cite the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Clinton. I'll repeat. Democrats and Republicans spoke up about going to war with Iraq in the 1990's. Its that simple. You say its all Democratic...What a blaming twisting statement. To recite the vote on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998..... Last I checked there weren't 360 Democrats in the House in 1998 and there weren't 100 Democrats in the Senate. thanks for the citation As I said...don't try and rewrite history and blame everything on Democrats or twist every statement into .....Bush gave the Democrats what they wanted. Oh....I know you like Wikipedia. Here is a citation on the PNAC with regard to their attitude on Iraq....
"What I read out of this is you like to blame Democrats for everything. How Dumb." Not really. I blame Democrats for everything. But, I also blame Republicans for everything. Now THAT is non-partisanship.
Actually what I'm doing is pretty much what you are doing, but from the Republican perspective. In essence, you've blamed everything on Republicans, while completely ignoring the significant roles democrats played in every aspect, long before Bush was in office. In fact, when I point these facts out, you seem to become discouraged that what you say and what the facts actually show, are at odds. This is true. We need only look at statements by democrats to acknowledge this. Perhaps it is the truth that you take issue with? Indeed, I did. It countered your incorrect assumption that "regime change" was something the republicans were responsible for. When we view the facts, we see this is entirely not true at all. In fact, Bill Clinton signed this act. What I find strange is, when you believed it was the fault of the republicans, you seemed outrage, but when discovering it was actually a democrat that signed the bill, you want to accuse me of citing it...as if being aware of the truth is something that deserves some sort of blame! I don't recall you saying such in the first place. Pretty much, you've blamed republicans for things democrats did long before Bush was in office, and I've countered such with actual sources that show otherwise. But, thank you for clearing that up *now* Oddly enough, you see something in me that you can't seem to see in yourself. You blame republicans for everything, but when confronted with the truth, you turn the tables and hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. And still have the nerve to scream "partisan!" Indeed. It does show that the Clinton policy was regime change, when in fact, you attempted to blame republicans for this. Do you apply this same standard to Bush? Don't you find it odd that you had no problem blaming republicans for something that was not factually correct, but when presented with the truth, you claim that not everyone in the house is democrat? Can I get a "partisan" here? Would it be too much to ask that you hold yourself to the same standard? After all, that is why we are having this discussion. Ironically, there was no problem in issuing unlimited condemnations towards republicans for literally *everything* but when countered with truth to show where the root of Iraq started, long before Bush was in office, you've taken great exception to the truth. Really? Did I miss somewhere in the Constitution that PNAC actually votes on American foreign policy? Does PNAC supersede the House? Does PNAC have veto power? There is a difference between a private group making statements, and what our government actually votes on. This is simply not true. One, I never asserted republicans have not called for a troop surge. What I countered was, your rhetoric in blaming republicans. In fact, we saw very much that democrats called for a troop surge and we saw that Bush gave them what they wanted. And once democrats received what they wanted, they changed their minds yet again. This isn't about what republicans wanted. I know what they wanted. What it's about, is suggesting that democrats are immune in this process? Why blame Kerry? Because blame is deserved there? Likewise, I could ask "why blame Bush?" But then again, blind hatred for a president always makes it ok. Kerry called for more troops. This is fact. He said if he were president, he would send more troops. This is fact. Once Bush gave democrats extra troops that they had been calling for, suddenly Kerry flip/flopped and was against sending more troops. We've had this discussion before. You've defended these very actions here in the past. You are willing to dole out blame to republicans for something, but when in fact we see it's democrats doing such, suddenly the tables turn. Yet, you still scream "partisan!" ...snip of a bunch of filler There is no twisting. I've not exclusively blamed any group. What I've done, is countered your exclusive blaming of republicans, to show how democrats...long before Bush were in office, were singing at the top of their lungs about going to war with Iraq. I've shown how democrats, long before Bush were in office, were touting saddam's wmd. I've shown how it was actually Clinton policy for "regime change" when you dished out blame to republicans for such. I've shown how Clinton ordered strikes against Iraq based upon his intel over wmd. I've shown how Bush has given democrats what they wanted, such as going to war with Iraq and sending more troops, yet democrats are willing to sell our country out over something they wanted in the first place. Democrats have had it easy these last seven years. Everything they wanted during the 90s, except for defeatism, has been handed to them on a silver platter by Bush. Their only opposition is that it was handled by a republican, rather than by their own party.
Democrats and Republicans are on the same team. One plays the bad guy for a while, then passes the baton. They must give the appearance of representing the people; thats how they get payed. America is waking up to that. No matter who is in office or controls the house - they deify the public. D
BD: I agree. Both parties are susceptable to being lying dogs. IMHO, they both play to their constuencies an will often rip the other party in some sort of partisan call. GTech: This is your post that I found troubling: But we both seem to acknowledge, more recently that people from both parties have done the following: 1. Called for war w/ Saddam Hussein during the period after Desert Storm and before 9/11. 2. Since the Iraq war started people from both parties and military leaders have at various times called for more troops. To change the subject somewhat consider this; About 55 years ago Truman had poll readings that were similarly low to those that Bush has and were stuck at a low point for a similarly long time. The US was engaged in the Korean war. After some ebb and flow of the war there was some level of stalemate. US forces at one side and North Koreans buttressed by a huge number of Chinese forces at the other side. Ultimately Eisenhower became President and ended the war at a stalemate. Sometime between then and now...and this became acceptable history by commentators from both sides....Truman has been seen as a positive American President. I wonder why that occurred? How did the perception of his presidency change so dramatically over time? I don't know the answers. I wonder if it had to do with his being President while WWII ended successfully for America, if it had to do with the fact that he was famed for taking responsability for issues.....he is well known for the "Buck Stops Here" phrase, or for other factors.