[ronald_reagan]

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers." (Clinton 11/27/07)

"I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" *(Clinton 05/2003)

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," (Clinton 06/2004)

I used to respect this man.

But didn't wife do the same thing? As well as Al Gore? And even statesman like John Kerry?

"we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." (from a letter signed by John Kerry)

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed" (Madeline Albright)
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security" (Hillary)

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." (ted kennedy, although he may have been drinking... and even swimming! so this comment can be disregarded lol)

If other comments are needed, I have about 200 more.

The Iraq war is all about politics, and its quite apparent. Saddening, but true. Our troops are the football, the war is the game, and the fans are Government officials who bet on them, and.... against them.

[thecavemaster]

I wonder if "ronald reagan" ever was at school and a bunch of people he knew and respected told him that another student was saying all kinds of stuff about him and had stolen his money and had it hid in his locker? Then, "ronald reagan" attacked the other kid, based on what he was told, looked all in the locker...but found nothing. Should "ronald reagan" have done a better job of investigating the veracity of the reports before acting? Probably. But, is "ronald reagan" as much to blame as the con artists who told him the bad info? I want to know who the men in the shadows are; I want to ask them why... they can be counted on to tell us who are enemies are, but they are never the ones to fight and to die...

[ronald_reagan]

I wonder if "ronald reagan" ever was at school and a bunch of people he knew and respected told him that another student was saying all kinds of stuff about him and had stolen his money and had it hid in his locker? Then, "ronald reagan" attacked the other kid, based on what he was told, looked all in the locker...but found nothing. Should "ronald reagan" have done a better job of investigating the veracity of the reports before acting? Probably. But, is "ronald reagan" as much to blame as the con artists who told him the bad info? I want to know who the men in the shadows are; I want to ask them why... they can be counted on to tell us who are enemies are, but they are never the ones to fight and to die...

:confused: :confused:

No. No. and No.

This isn't a question about Ronnie. Its a question about Clinton and his lies. Lets try to stay on topic.

The question asked is... what is Clinton's problem? He supported it from the beginning, and now says otherwise.

But to respond to your slander, those men in the shadows, DO fight and DO die. The military has a huge intelligence area in MOS's. Its a shame that you don't do more investigating yourself before making the same mistakes that I'm trying to highlight.

[thecavemaster]

Of course, I was using "ronald reagan" in quotes as an indicator of an analogy, which, had you have understood that, you would see, again, of course, that the post was on topic. And, of course, exactly one member of Congress has a son or daughter in Iraq... the "men in the shadows" almost never fight and die in wars, though they tell us who our enemies are. You debunked nothing with your post. Nothing.

[ronald_reagan]

what are you trying to say? you have to have a son or daughter in iraq to make an accurate assessment? that the military doesn't have an intelligence arm? that those who work for the cia have never died in combat? What??

I dont' get it. Nor was I trying to debunk anything.

But I will debunk one thing. Your lie about only 1 member of Congress having a son or daughter in Iraq. I don't know at this exact moment who is there, but i know who HAS served there.

Todd Akin's son.
Jim Webb
Joe Biden
Max Baucus
Joe Wilson
John Mccain (maybe?)

The US Senate library reports that 10 sons and daughters of Congressmen and women have fought in Iraq. Which is one in every 53 families, which I guess is about average with the nation as well.

I'm guessing that 50-100 are in the military. So please, don't belittle their service.

Those in the shadow, are you and i, my friend. Not those who serve our nation and try to defend it.

[thecavemaster]

what are you trying to say? you have to have a son or daughter in iraq to make an accurate assessment? that the military doesn't have an intelligence arm? that those who work for the cia have never died in combat? What??

I dont' get it. Nor was I trying to debunk anything.

But I will debunk one thing. Your lie about only 1 member of Congress having a son or daughter in Iraq. I don't know at this exact moment who is there, but i know who HAS served there.

Todd Akin's son.
Jim Webb
Joe Biden
Max Baucus
Joe Wilson
John Mccain (maybe?)

The US Senate library reports that 10 sons and daughters of Congressmen and women have fought in Iraq. Which is one in every 53 families, which I guess is about average with the nation as well.

I'm guessing that 50-100 are in the military. So please, don't belittle their service.

Those in the shadow, are you and i, my friend. Not those who serve our nation and try to defend it.

I am saying that the information provided that claimed Iraq was an immediate and present threat to the USA was, at best, quite a stretch of the intelligence information. The raw sore of 9/11 anger, the fear of being perceived as "weak on terror," the less than accurate intelligence information, these kinds of things led people to support a war which they now oppose. Those in the shadows are gun runners, weapons traders, defense contractors... policy makers who sit on boards of directors as silent partners, those who know war is big profit business. I belittle no one's service. Nor do I check in reason at the door because of it. And, you are right; you are guessing.

[ronald_reagan]

As I said, you saying that only 1 congressman has a son or daughter serving is a lie.

The point of this article was, as you missed it completely, Clinton lied. We all know this isn't his first time at doing so. Its ok to me if you supported the war at the beginning, yet now don't. Or vice versa. But its never acceptable to lie about if you did or didn't, oh which he's doing... and we can all guess why!

CaveMaster, I'm not goin to talk anymore about who serves in Iraq. The point was made, and quickly disproven. Its over. Lets try to stay on topic, and the topic is.. What is Bills problem with lying? Had it read, who serves in Iraq.. this would have been a nice conversation, albeit, an untruthful one from some, but at least on topic.

Thanks,
Ronald Reagan
POTUS
Right Hand of God

[thecavemaster]

[quote=ronald_reagan]As I said, you saying that only 1 congressman has a son or daughter serving is a lie.

The point of this article was, as you missed it completely, Clinton lied. We all know this isn't his first time at doing so. Its ok to me if you supported the war at the beginning, yet now don't. Or vice versa. But its never acceptable to lie about if you did or didn't, oh which he's doing... and we can all guess why!

CaveMaster, I'm not goin to talk anymore about who serves in Iraq. The point was made, and quickly disproven. Its over. Lets try to stay on topic, and the topic is.. What is Bills problem with lying? Had it read, who serves in Iraq.. this would have been a nice conversation, albeit, an untruthful one from some, but at least on topic.

Thanks,
Ronald Reagan
POTUS
Right Hand of God[/quote

Tons of people supported the war at first, then as facts came to light, they did not support it. Is it untruthful to change one's mind? Disproven in your mind, perhaps, and, apparently, that is very important to you.

[ronald_reagan]

what are you lacking to understand this? i mean, how can i possibly help you to grasp the concept??

this is NOT a post about one changing their mind. let me make that clear. Clinton explains it better than , and I further explain it in other posts. But yet you refuse to accept that he didn't just change his mind, he lied.

He says he supported it, now says he NEVER supported it. Re-read the first post, and his own words.

"I supported the Iraq thing"
"I supported the president"
"opposed it from the beginning"

As I said, and you quoted.. I have no problem with someone supporting and now not, or vice versa. Its lying about your stance for political gain (whether your own, or your wifes).

Truth is, I don't support the war itself any longer. I wanted it at the beginning, and I think its a very noble effort. Yet, I think its been a disaster and we need a change of course. So I'm not some war crazed freak who has nothing better to do with his day. I'm merely pointing out the facts.. and the facts have shown, and will continue to show that Clinton needs a dose of Sodium Pentathol.

[thecavemaster]

In the aftermath of 9/11, the American nation was hungry for a scapegoat, a desire to pay back, to avenge. Politicans feed off of public fervor like that, and fear it. Quite a few public leaders, it seems to me, compromised principles in the wake of 9/11. I simply don't find Bill Clinton any more or less culpable here. To say I supported the Iraq thing, then changed my mind is different from saying "I never supported it." I will do a little digging in this area and get back with you.

[ronald_reagan]

To say I supported the Iraq thing, then changed my mind is different from saying "I never supported it."

Exactly. Thats been my point all along! He didn't change his mind, he changed his story (read: history). Changing your mind, as many have done (including myself) on this issue is completely acceptable. No problem at all to me if you keep the mindset that Iraq is worth is, or you once did, and now don't. The problem is, Clinton is a liar. That fact is known, and its admitted by him in a plea deal in 2001. Of which he was the only president to ever be disbarred.

Had clinton said, I supported it, but I was wrong. Thats fine. We'd be on the same side of the river, but he's on record saying he supported it... and just yesterday said, "i never did". But who would have ever thought Clinton would do such a thing?? :confused:

[thecavemaster]

O.K. I read a 2003 speech by Bill Clinton and watched part of the speech in Iowa where he said he never supported the war in Iraq. I think it could be argued that Clinton agreed with the idea of giving Bush "war powers" for surgical strikes into Iraq targeting WMD's and other targets. I think it is much less clear whether he agreed with the complete overthrow/takeover strategy. Obama actually participated in a war protest, which Bill Clinton never did. I still think that if the question is "Did Bill Clinton support the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein and an American occupation of Iraq?" the evidence suggests he did not.

[ronald_reagan]

O.K. I read a 2003 speech by Bill Clinton and watched part of the speech in Iowa where he said he never supported the war in Iraq. I think it could be argued that Clinton agreed with the idea of giving Bush "war powers" for surgical strikes into Iraq targeting WMD's and other targets. I think it is much less clear whether he agreed with the complete overthrow/takeover strategy. Obama actually participated in a war protest, which Bill Clinton never did. I still think that if the question is "Did Bill Clinton support the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein and an American occupation of Iraq?" the evidence suggests he did not.

The evidence is???

"I supported the Iraq thing" (after the 'iraq thing happened').

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but you're not a very good job of it. thats all.

You can't say you support something, and then turn around say you didn't.

Would bill clinton have done what Bush did? IMO absolutely not. Would Tom Daschle (author of the bill) have done it? IMO absolutely not. But did they support it? Absolutely so.

Support and action are different. Being in the presidents shoes is a little more than being arm chair quarterback. Those who aren't in the oval office can say that they would have, or wouldn't have... or how they'd done things different. Hindsight is always 20/20...

Its clear to me, and many others... Clinton supported Bush's war. He says so numerous times. (as John Kerry supported TROOPS ON THE GROUND in 1998), and just yesterday is says he never did. Thats a lie. Thats the point of the thread.

[DevilsWin]

Why are we talking about Bill Clinton?

[ronald_reagan]

because i started a thread about him.

any other questions?

[thecavemaster]

The evidence is???

"I supported the Iraq thing" (after the 'iraq thing happened').

I don't know what you're trying to prove, but you're not a very good job of it. thats all.

You can't say you support something, and then turn around say you didn't.

Would bill clinton have done what Bush did? IMO absolutely not. Would Tom Daschle (author of the bill) have done it? IMO absolutely not. But did they support it? Absolutely so.

Support and action are different. Being in the presidents shoes is a little more than being arm chair quarterback. Those who aren't in the oval office can say that they would have, or wouldn't have... or how they'd done things different. Hindsight is always 20/20...

Its clear to me, and many others... Clinton supported Bush's war. He says so numerous times. (as John Kerry supported TROOPS ON THE GROUND in 1998), and just yesterday is says he never did. Thats a lie. Thats the point of the thread.

I may give someone power of attorney; however, within that framework, I have certain expectations of action. I am saying that there is evidence that Bill Clinton supported "war powers," but if "the Iraq thing" meant overthrow and long-term occupation, no. It is not clear to me that Clinton supported the strategic decisions. There is no doubt that Obama clearly opposed the war (whatever the strategy) from the beginning and that both Bill and Hillary approved of giving Bush "war powers."

[ronald_reagan]

I may give someone power of attorney; however, within that framework, I have certain expectations of action. I am saying that there is evidence that Bill Clinton supported "war powers," but if "the Iraq thing" meant overthrow and long-term occupation, no. It is not clear to me that Clinton supported the strategic decisions. There is no doubt that Obama clearly opposed the war (whatever the strategy) from the beginning and that both Bill and Hillary approved of giving Bush "war powers."

I AGREE!!!!!!!

Why do you keep going back to the strategic errors??

As I said numerous times, we have all changed your views somewhat, and some no longer support the occupation. Clinton would NOT have done what Bush done. Thats what we both agree on. All I'm saying, and all you're missing is that he lied about his support for what DID happen. Its ok to change your mind. He apparently has, as I have. Its wrong to say you never supported it. When the record shows you did.

Whether he supported a larger war, a smaller war, or a proxy war.. we'll never know. we know though that he thought the president acted properly and with his support, but then again... we also know he didn't support it lol.

He sounds like he'd vote for it, before voting against it.

Look cavemaster, this conversation is going no where. Thus I will end my half of it, unless you can stop the bickering. This isn't an arguement or debateable point. The question is, why can't Clinton tell the truth? Not, why did he change his mind... or why does his wife have kankles... or whose camel would he kill with cruise missles??

[thecavemaster]

I found an old news interview in which Clinton said that he supported giving the President (Bush) authority to "go in there and eliminate the WMD program." I also found this language in three other speeches around that time. If Clinton thought the goal of the invasion was to eliminate the WMD program, and voiced his support thusly, it might be a need to call him a liar in this issue more than the reality which is working here. I am going to keep digging.

[thecavemaster]

End your half of it if you must. I'll try not to miss a meal...

[ronald_reagan]

End your half of it if you must. I'll try not to miss a meal...

just in case you do ---> :popcorn:

[DevilsWin]

because i started a thread about him.

any other questions?

Yeah, Why are you starting a tread about the guy? He's out of the picture, in the past, old news. This Thread is totally useless.

Maybe you should start a thread on Jimmy Carter as well.

[DevilsWin]

I AGREE!!!!!!!

Why do you keep going back to the strategic errors??

As I said numerous times, we have all changed your views somewhat, and some no longer support the occupation. Clinton would NOT have done what Bush done. Thats what we both agree on. All I'm saying, and all you're missing is that he lied about his support for what DID happen. Its ok to change your mind. He apparently has, as I have. Its wrong to say you never supported it. When the record shows you did.

Whether he supported a larger war, a smaller war, or a proxy war.. we'll never know. we know though that he thought the president acted properly and with his support, but then again... we also know he didn't support it lol.

He sounds like he'd vote for it, before voting against it.

Look cavemaster, this conversation is going no where. Thus I will end my half of it, unless you can stop the bickering. This isn't an arguement or debateable point. The question is, why can't Clinton tell the truth? Not, why did he change his mind... or why does his wife have kankles... or whose camel would he kill with cruise missles??

Ronald Regan and George Bush lied too, Only difference is their lies cost the U.S. Billions of Dollars and Millions of lives.

[ronald_reagan]

Yeah, Why are you starting a tread about the guy? He's out of the picture, in the past, old news. This Thread is totally useless.

Maybe you should start a thread on Jimmy Carter as well.

You are in the political forum.

If I choose to start a thread on Josef Stalin, I'll do just that.

Jesus Christ is in the past, about 2000 years removed. I'm sure he'd disagree that just because you're in the past, you're 'old news'.

Look Bill Clinton will never be 'old news'. Even after his death, he'll impact politics. If you don't think he should be discussed, then this is a thread you should avoid.

And thanks for the advice....

Jimmy Carter is my next target.

:letsparty

[ronald_reagan]

Ronald Regan and George Bush lied too, Only difference is their lies cost the U.S. Billions of Dollars and Millions of lives.

I must have missed the post where I said Bush didn't lie. :confused:

But how did Reagan (not Regan) lie and cost billions of dollars and millions of lives? :confused:

[thecavemaster]

Did I miss something... or did "ronald reagan" just use Jesus to try and settle some sort of debate about a political thread? We're starting to learn a little something about the ol' noodle factory in that head...

[ronald_reagan]

Did I miss something... or did "ronald reagan" just use Jesus to try and settle some sort of debate about a political thread? We're starting to learn a little something about the ol' noodle factory in that head...

Yes, you must have missed something.

I didn't use Jesus to settle a political debate. I used Jesus to make a point. Saying that someone is in the past isn't a good arguement for saying they shouldn't be talked about. If Devilwins didn't want to talk about Clinton, he came to the wrong thread, and if he/she thinks that Clinton isn't a good subject, he/she came to the wrong forum.

But if want to inject Jesus into the political debate, I'll gladly start a thread on it, and we'll go from there. I think Jesus the philosopher, would be a great debate piece.

[thecavemaster]

Yes, you must have missed something.

I didn't use Jesus to settle a political debate. I used Jesus to make a point. Saying that someone is in the past isn't a good arguement for saying they shouldn't be talked about. If Devilwins didn't want to talk about Clinton, he came to the wrong thread, and if he/she thinks that Clinton isn't a good subject, he/she came to the wrong forum.

But if want to inject Jesus into the political debate, I'll gladly start a thread on it, and we'll go from there. I think Jesus the philosopher, would be a great debate piece.

Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor...woe unto the rich." Don't sound like Ronald Reagan to me...

[ronald_reagan]

Jesus said, "Blessed are the poor...woe unto the rich." Don't sound like Ronald Reagan to me...

Your point? :confused:

As I said, if you want to discuss Jesus in depth, you or I should start a thread on the topic.

In regards to your comment, I disagree. I did many wonderful things when I was in office.

[thecavemaster]

Your point? :confused:

As I said, if you want to discuss Jesus in depth, you or I should start a thread on the topic.

In regards to your comment, I disagree. I did many wonderful things when I was in office.

I hope that saying this will not land you in Eastern State, but Ronald Reagan is dead, and though you take his name as a user name, you actually did nothing in office because you were never in office. Now, the actual Ronald Reagan practiced an economic theory ("trickle down") which aided the rich, shrunk the middle class, and further destituted the poor...thus, the Jesus reference.

[ronald_reagan]

I hope that saying this will not land you in Eastern State, but Ronald Reagan is dead, and though you take his name as a user name, you actually did nothing in office because you were never in office. Now, the actual Ronald Reagan practiced an economic theory ("trickle down") which aided the rich, shrunk the middle class, and further destituted the poor...thus, the Jesus reference.

I know Jesus. He worked for me. You my friend are no Jesus either.

When you tax someone at over 91% as it was for years upon years, 70% when reagan took office..... giving them a break isn't the worst thing in the world. Besides, they sign your checks.

So tell me, how does a tax break for the rich, hurt the poor? And most studies show the middle class did shrink under Reagan, as you point out. They became richer. Not members of a lower class. (wow, i'm sounding like John Edwards with all this 'class' talk).

This thread is getting off topic. If you wish to continue, i would suggest starting a thread about Reagan's failures. :howdy: