The repukes keep saying Bill Clinton would have gone to war

[still_one]

O.K. Bill, SAY SOMETHING!!!

[lebkuchen]

1. Why don't we stay on the subject of the president who is in the WH

who brought us to war?

If there is anything a RWer loves more, it's to change the subject. And who can blame them?

[Kukesa]

Yeah, and blaming Clinton is easier than thinking. (nt)

[lebkuchen]

8. RWers are incapable of assuming responsibility

even though "responsibility" is the basis of their platform in an election year. Again, go figure.

[ShrewdLiberal]

47. Exactly. Clinton seems like a monumentally great president...

compared to G. W. Fraud Clinton has been raised to near great status by the majority of the American people because, in large part, he was so competent compared to what is squatting in the Oval Office.

Hell, Clinton was above average ethically, overall. A little tail on the side is nothing compared to the criminal means to the end, the Iraq War.

G. W. Fraud will go down in the top three worst presidents ever--probably #1 all-time worse. His record on the economy, taxes, annual budget deficits, national debt, foreign debt, poverty stats, jobs created, stock market performance, the Iraq War, the terrible job on terrorism, immigration, race relations, foreign policy, damage to U.S.A.'s reputation in the world, damage in terms of trust in government, etc.

Unbelievable what this era is--corruption and cronyism will be in the first line of the summation of G. W.'s presidency. Never in the history of America has anyone come remotely close to it; not U. S. Grant, Warren Harding, Richard Nixon, or that criminal phony Ronald Reagan. Bush takes the cake, and even gives that to the rich.

[Kukesa]

48. Welcome to DU, ShrewdLiberal; you'll like it here. (nt)

[still_one]

18. No, but that is what they are doing

and unless the record is set straight they will keep repeating the lie

It should NOT be ignored

[lebkuchen]

29. It's a misdirect comment

making it no more valid than the RWers' latest lie claiming that Plame was responsible for her husband going to Niger, or that Plame's life wasn't in danger as a result of her name being outed, so why the Libby indictment?

Fitzgerald could spend a lifetime of money and oxygen trying to deconstruct the lie, when, in the end, the lie is insignificant to the fact of the matter, that outing a CIA agent is a federal offense.

[still_one]

32. you cannot ignore a lie or a distortion

they did when the swift puke liars told their lies, and we cannot let this lies go unchallenged

Of course 2006 is critical, because if we regain control of the house we can impeach the bastard

[lebkuchen]

39. Yes, I can. I've ignored/cut off several former family friends

who will argue to the death all sorts of fantasies until the day they die. It's not my responsibility to rehabilitate them. I simply provide them a notepad, pencil and tattletale box and direct them to submit their complaint, which I then file under "chickenshit."

I have better things to do than to try to convince the terminally ill. Let them wallow in their ignorance until events spiral so out of control and all discussion points to politics, out of the need to survive, that they themselves realize that they are so removed from the loop of the informed, they must slink away because they bring nothing to the discussion.

[still_one]

43. if you do not correct a lie then we will continue to lose elections

[lebkuchen]

46. Agreed, but I only bother to unravel a lie on a grand scale

to a much larger audience. ;)

And then I redirect the discussion to the topic at hand, not RW wild goose chases.


Here's an example of another misdirect--blaming Kerry for something that has happened under Bush's watch:

Realistic rules of engagement

I was surprised that the article on an international arrest order issued by a Spanish judge for three tankers was on Page 5 of the Oct. 20 Stars and Stripes (“Arrest order issued for 3 GIs over journalist’s death in Iraq,” Associated Press article). This blatant political action affects all combat soldiers who are required to make immediate decisions to ensure their safety and make “stuff happen.” They cannot leave the country without being arrested and risk any overseas assets that they may have being confiscated. Under a Kerry presidency, they probably would have been extradited to Spain to stand trail for murder.

Having just completed the rules of engagement course, I’m in a quandary over the appropriate response to hostile action — for example in the situation involving four contractors killed by Iraqi insurgents, or may I say terrorists. I’ve read several news articles that said: “Killing one of the men with a rifle fired into the back of his head, they doused the other with petrol and set it afire, barefoot children, yelping in delight, piled straw on the screaming man’s body to stoke the flames. The crowd then dragged their corpses through the streets, chanting anti-U.S. slogans.”

Since we’re presently tried by the international press and judged by the international court, what do we do? Use minimal lethal force to drive off the armed terrorists and risk killing or maiming these sweet children? Attempt to intervene with nonlethal means to separate the armed men and pyromaniac children from the burning U.S. contractor? By then the contractor, who was squirming on the ground, probably had his eyes, nose, ears, lips, private parts, fingers and toes burned off. Do you put him out with a fire extinguisher or just put a mercy bullet in his brain? I believe an officer is on his way to Leavenworth for such a decision.

Lastly, should we cordon the area and call the child protection services to tenderly extract the children from this horrendous situation? Heaven forbid that the children become emotionally scarred for life.

Chief Warrant Officer 4 Miles A. Caughey
Camp Buehring, Kuwait

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33034

*Sigh* Hard to believe it's possible to lower the military education standards to a baser level than what this writer has demonstrated.

I welcome you to respond to the letter, all events which have happened under BUSH's watch. I'd do it myself, but I have one being blended already. :) Send it here:

[e-mail]

[zbdent]

44. NOW THERE'S A BUMPER STICKER!!!!!

BLAMING LIBERALS IS EASIER THAN THINKING!

I gotta get me some blank bumper sticker sheets!

[still_one]

16. because they are distorting what the democrats did and did NOT do

and they should come out loud and clear, that they DID NOT go to war, and bush did. It is really quite simple

The problem is if you ignore it then people will believe it as fact

Remember the swift puke liars?

[Tarc]

26. all too true

You don't know how many times I encounter right-wingers online who resort to this trick time and time again. One in particular I know dredges up anything and everything Clinton in a desperate attempt to change the subject. From Iraq, to Plame-gate to whatever, it's always "...but Clinton..." Sad, sad, sad.

The thing is, everyone has known for years that Hussein was a dictatorial cretin and has always had ambitions to get back at us for Gulf War I. But like the typical neighborhood bully, his bark was far worse than the bite, and Clinton smartly knew that all along; that while the world may indeed be better off without a Hussein regime, the threat did not rise to the level which would necessitate an invasion.

[lebkuchen]

37. Clinton did not extend US military presence in Iraq for another 4 years

Bush did. And Bush invaded Iraq because his imaginary friend, God, told him to.

[Missy M]

2. Now that is a stupid argument on their part, seeing as he didn't!

[Demit]

3. Exactly.

[still_one]

19. that is my point

and that is why when their talking points keep using democrats as their justification, needs to be stopped in its tracks before the big lie gets started

[Loonman]

4. LOL...desperation sets in

No way in hell would Clinton have gone to war, for any number of reasons.

[still_one]

25. This is an opportunity for the Democrats to make them EAT their words

[Loonman]

40. Yeah, yeah!

Bring up the 'wag the dog' BS the Repubs harped on.

[goodboy]

5. But he would've gone the right way, with enough troops, enough equipment,

complete international support, and ONLY AS A LAST FUCKING RESORT

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

6. But he didn't, now did he?!?!? Let's stick to the facts, okay.

W went to war in Iraq. Case closed.

[spindrifter]

7. IF--big IF--

WJC had gone to war in Iraq, it would not have been with the Dumbed-down Rumstud no-exit strategy approach. And he certainly would not have spent all his political capital wracking up a massive national debt over an ego trip to the Middle East.

[still_one]

35. True, and they would NOT have gone to war in Iraq either

because the intelligence would NOT have been sexed up or distorted

[jedicord]

9. PNAC asked him to go to war.

And he didn't. End of story.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. Yours is the best response so far.

[Jacobin]

45. That would be correct and it is not subject to debate

[NanceGreggs]

10. Clinton would have gone to war ...

... would have ruined the economy instead of building up a surplus, would have outsourced jobs instead of creating them, would have ruined America's image around the world instead of gaining it even more respect, would have taken from the poor and given to the wealthy, and would have screwed the entire country instead of Monica.

Yes, he WOULD HAVE done all of these things, had he been as ignorant, self-centred, arrogant and as FUCKIN' STUPID as G.W. Bush.

Thank God he wasn't.

[Garbo 2004]

12. A sign of desperation. Remember how they claimed Clinton was weak on

defense and national security? Remember they blamed him for everything, including Sept 11?

Now they're claiming Clinton would have invaded and occupied a nation that had nothing to do with Sept 11? Uh, no he wouldn't have. (Forgetting that if Clinton was Pres there may not have been a Sept 11. Clinton, unlike Bush, thought Al Qaeda was a threat, paid attention to national security advisories and was proactive about such things. In contrast, the Bushies derided the Clinton's administration's "obsession" with Bin Laden and AQ. And didn't do squat the summer of 2001 when the "chatter" was scaring the crap out of intel types.)

But it's interesting to see how desperate they've become that they're citing Clinton as their authority. LOL. Pathetic.

[still_one]

23. absolutely, this is why the Democrats should NOT let them get

away with these lies

[B Calm]

13. President Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq, but too smart

to actually do it!

[ProfessorGAC]

14. But, They Also Say He Had The Same Intelligence

And, he didn't go to war with that intelligence. So, either he had the same intelligence or not. And that intelligence was good enough to go to war, or not. So, if he had the same intelligence and didn't go to war, they're wrong. If the intelligence was different, then they're wrong! (0 for 2 boys!)

Of course, the third option is they are lying, and that he had earlier intelligence, chose to see it as a non-threat, and wouldn't have gone to war when it wasn't necessary.
The Professor

[Loonman]

15. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

This all these pea-brains got?

[B Calm]

17. 9 months into Bush presidency and they blame Clinton for 9-11

So yes, they are pea brains and this is all they got!!

[sandnsea]

20. Hey!! Clinton wagged the dog for chrissake

He had Osama's head on a platter and didn't take it! He would have filed a law suit after 9/11! He was a weanie who never would have gone to war!!

(They really need to pick a story and stick to it)

[Mutley]

21. Bill doesn't need to answer...

This is about Georgie, not Clinton. Who cares what Clinton 'would have done'?

[still_one]

28. Clinton WOULD NOT HAVE GONE TO WAR IN IRAQ

who cares, it doesn't matter that is what they said about the swift puke liars, and they got away with rewriting history

WE CANNOT let that happen on this

It is time to speak truth

[Mutley]

31. Or we can allow them to get us to shift our focus on

what Clinton 'would have done' instead of on what Georgie 'has done'.

[still_one]

38. no, it would NOT shift focus

but clearly point out that PNAC and the bush administration LIED

[myrna minx]

22. Oh muh Gawd.

So the republican's strategy is crying that a man who has been out of office for 5 years would have entered us into this quagmire? Are they trying to legitimize themselves by evoking the name of BILL CLINTON? :rofl: :rofl: Oh my, I think I saw a pig fly by my window.

What's next? "An older boy told me to go to war. See! It was an older boy!!!" :cry: :cry:

[LittleClarkie]

24. When he DID go to war, the Republicans were suddenly a buncha pacifists

That's the hypocritical thing.

[porphyrian]

27. What is their fucking obsession with Clinton?!

Just fuck him already and get it over with.

[LuCifer]

30. I was just gonna say!

But they keep telling US to get over their FIXED ELECTIONS...oh you sorry ReSucKKKliKKKons, go BLOW IT OUT YOUR ASS ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!
And stay off Bill's tip! Sick perverted fucks...

Lu

[B Calm]

34. They're upset that he didn't show his 12 inch mr. chubby to them..

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

33. Now THAT is "rewriting history"

(and Worst.Arguement.Ever)

[thebigidea]

36. all he'd say is that we need to "move forward" and "work together"

to make Iraq a success or somesuch drivel. He hasn't exactly been inspiring on the Iraq subject.

[The_Casual_Observer]

41. All the while more hapless military guys get snuffed out

for god-knows-what in Iraq.

[mulsh]

42. CLINTON DID NOT GO TO WAR IN IRAQ

sorry for shouting but this 'shoulda, coulda, woulda" bullshit gets on my nerves.

[still_one]

49. Thank you Bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5419395,00.html