Post Reply
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 12:24PM #41
Ironhold
Posts: 11,664

UwishUwereMe wrote:

But I still think it funny that BUSH lied to get us into war.  He may have lied but the war bill passed almost completely unanamously (spelling?).  It took the effort of the House and Senate as well. 

Sorry. 

I don't let Rush or Glenn Beck or anyone do my thinkinf for me, but I agree with them.


The whole thing with Iraq was a cluster foul-up.

The intelligence that we had said that Hussein was developing WMDs in spite of the ban, and Hussein's claims of possessing weapons and his stonewalling of the UN inspectors gave legitimacy to the reports.

Some of the information we had was indeed faulty, but only because someone slipped us faulty information. This includes a certain senator, who went about his "fact-finding mission" with a conclusion already in mind.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 2:31PM #42
UwishUwereMe
Posts: 2,352
We could dredge up how bad LBJ was.  I understand he was a liar and a scum bag.  I understand he had an even LESS admirable reason to stay in vietnam than Bush had to go into Iraq. 

I am sensative to the Iraq situation because pieces of me are still there, and I know I left them there for good reason. 

Bush got the shaft, that's how I feel.  But this isn't about Bush or LBJ, it's about OBAMA, and the fact that he is already failing. 

Just an observation...
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 4:05PM #43
moksha8088
Posts: 5,037

UwishUwereMe wrote:

We could dredge up how bad LBJ was. I understand he was a liar and a scum bag. I understand he had an even LESS admirable reason to stay in Vietnam than Bush had to go into Iraq.


Somewhat the same reason.  Exxon had discovered huge undersea deposits of oil a few years previously right off the shore in the Sea of Vietnam.  It was already known that Iraq had huge oil reserves.  Where there is money to be made, first there are wars to be fought if the resources are owned by someone else.





-------------------------

Here is an interesting item. Last night on KSL Television, they posted a list of the top five Presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman

I think this originated from C-SPAN, who polled 65 presidential historians.  Way to go Abe!

-------------------------

Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 4:58PM #44
bytebear
Posts: 1,451

moksha8088 wrote:

Somewhat the same reason. Exxon had discovered huge undersea deposits of oil a few years previously right off the shore in the Sea of Vietnam. It was already known that Iraq had huge oil reserves. Where there is money to be made, first there are wars to be fought if the resources are owned by someone else.


It really seems counterintuitive and stuipd to start a war just to get oil reserves. And I don't think Bush or Cheney are that stupid No, the war in Iraq was started because we had a UN mandate to do so. In other words, it was legal. We would have attacked Iran too if we could get UN support for it, but we couldn't. Before the overthrow of Iran, it was very western, as was Saudi Arabia. Since then, things have gotten far worse for Western influence. So, Bush, and a good number in congress on both sides (including Hillary) voted for war, that would hopefully bring back some western culture and influence to the region. Probem is, the fundies have too big a foothold culturally, and western ideas did not flourish. If they had, Bush would be seen as the greatest president ever. It wasn't that the war was a bad idea, or even that the exicution was poor. It was that the results weren't expected, and now Bush gets the shaft. But, remember, congress overwhelmingly voted for the war, and even still vote for support of the effort (even if they publically denounce it).  Time will tell if Bush is truly a great president or not, and it will all have to do with what Iraq is like in 10 or 20 years.  It may very well become the next UAE or Egypt with a stable government who isn't afraid of Western ideas.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 4:05PM #45
moksha8088
Posts: 5,037

UwishUwereMe wrote:

We could dredge up how bad LBJ was. I understand he was a liar and a scum bag. I understand he had an even LESS admirable reason to stay in Vietnam than Bush had to go into Iraq.


Somewhat the same reason.  Exxon had discovered huge undersea deposits of oil a few years previously right off the shore in the Sea of Vietnam.  It was already known that Iraq had huge oil reserves.  Where there is money to be made, first there are wars to be fought if the resources are owned by someone else.





-------------------------

Here is an interesting item. Last night on KSL Television, they posted a list of the top five Presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman

I think this originated from C-SPAN, who polled 65 presidential historians.  Way to go Abe!

-------------------------

Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 16, 2009 - 4:58PM #46
bytebear
Posts: 1,451

moksha8088 wrote:

Somewhat the same reason. Exxon had discovered huge undersea deposits of oil a few years previously right off the shore in the Sea of Vietnam. It was already known that Iraq had huge oil reserves. Where there is money to be made, first there are wars to be fought if the resources are owned by someone else.


It really seems counterintuitive and stuipd to start a war just to get oil reserves. And I don't think Bush or Cheney are that stupid No, the war in Iraq was started because we had a UN mandate to do so. In other words, it was legal. We would have attacked Iran too if we could get UN support for it, but we couldn't. Before the overthrow of Iran, it was very western, as was Saudi Arabia. Since then, things have gotten far worse for Western influence. So, Bush, and a good number in congress on both sides (including Hillary) voted for war, that would hopefully bring back some western culture and influence to the region. Probem is, the fundies have too big a foothold culturally, and western ideas did not flourish. If they had, Bush would be seen as the greatest president ever. It wasn't that the war was a bad idea, or even that the exicution was poor. It was that the results weren't expected, and now Bush gets the shaft. But, remember, congress overwhelmingly voted for the war, and even still vote for support of the effort (even if they publically denounce it).  Time will tell if Bush is truly a great president or not, and it will all have to do with what Iraq is like in 10 or 20 years.  It may very well become the next UAE or Egypt with a stable government who isn't afraid of Western ideas.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 1:22AM #47
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,207

Ironhold wrote:

The bit with Monica came out as a side effect of Ken Starr's investigations into legitimate allegations of wrongdoing against the Clintons, such as Whitewater. Starr was so repeatedly stonewalled by the White House that he started having to examine things peripherally in order to find what evidence he could, and in the process inadvertently set up a situation where Monica and her friend were able to come forward.


I see it a little differently.  Starr was the most partisan special prosecutor we've ever had.  Unlike with Iran Contra, where there was a single issue of grave national importance (the sale of missiles to Iran and the misappropriation of those funds to quietly and privately fund the Contras, in violation of federal law)  - with lots of stonewalling by the Bush people (Reagan's endless supply of "I don't recall" combined with Casey's sudden coma).  Congress cut a deal with Oliver North, granting him immunity in exchange for his testimony in hearings that were better than cable.  Had it not been for (a) Reagan's popularity; (b) Reagan's admission that the administration had done wrong; (c) Casey's untimely death and (d) North's immunity, making it harder to find anyone left to pin it on - we might have seen another Watergate.  The difference was that America loved Ronald Reagan, Reagan yelled "whoops" where Nixon had retreated into the shadows; and Ollie North (wrapped in immunity) made such a great Nathan Jessup, and by virtue of that, we had our Joker.

Starr's prosecution was silly and vapid to begin with.  He bragged, going in, that he was going to bring the Clintons down - and he did so publicly, to cheering crowds at Bob Jones University.  He went from one investigation to the next.  In each case, he never found anything substantial.  The Clintons were involved in Whitewater.  It looks like they played footsy with some pretty poweful people - but nothing earthshattering came out of that.  There was that business of Hillary Clinton making huge sums of money in the commodities market, arguably a bribe from a powerful Abramoff-like figure, but nothing you could really work up in a federal case.  Suspicious?  To be sure.  The equivalent of money in the freezer - or a large addition to your house in Alaska?  Not hardly.  Then there was Travelgate.  The Clintons actually fired the old travel staff and filled the vacancies with Clintonites.  Isn't that called the Spoils System?  Then there was Vince Foster's suicide, for which Jerry Falwell made a tape accusing Hillary of having the man murdered.  Give me a break.  About the worst thing to come out of that was the accusation that Hillary might have had an affair with the guy and went back to retrieve anything tying her to him.  I can remember watching this story unfold and thinking that Hillary was a sneaky, controlling, ice queen - but beyond that, what do you really have?

Starr couldn't find anything on the Clintons, which is why he kept fishing around for something new to investigate.  His methods were essentially that of the anti-Mormon who brings up an issue, gets nowhere with it, brings up another issue, gets nowhere with it and then continues to keep flitting about like a busy little bee - only to claim he's disproved Mormonism because the Mormons can never resolve the issues he brings up.  When Starr turned in his huge report, all of these investigations amounted to the equivalent of a footnote.  Almost all of that report was dedicated to Monicagate which, at most, amounted to a failure of candor during a civil suit.  Never mind the fact that this was the last of many attempts to go after the Clintons and that it was funded by Clinton's enemies.

The bulk of the budget "surplus" only existed on paper. Even then, it relied upon the dot-com bubble continuing and Clinton finding an excuse to raid Social Security for $$$. Part of the present Social Security crisis is Clinton's raiding, which drained much of what little money was actually in the system and shortening the fund's lifespan by several years.


You may be right about the first part.  Clinton was exceptionally adept at spinning.  Any figures he tossed around should be scrutinized.  Clinton had a habit of interpreting the data with as much polish as he could muster.  This is, after all, the politician who said, "I didn't have sex with her; she was having sex with me."  But if you're going to blame the Social Security crisis on "Clinton's raiding," you are drinking the tea.  While nobody has solved the Social Security crisis (which is not really as much of a crisis as any of them have made out), I seriously doubt you can make a plausible case that it was Clinton who did this to us.  People are living longer.  They are using more funds.  In addition, the generation offsetting the draw by putting in funds of their own is a lot smaller than the boomers.  Unless we raise taxes, lower benefits or simply grab money from something else, we're going to run deficits for a number of years.  But this is cyclical.  We ought to be building surpluses during certain years and running deficits in others - and if the money is properly managed, the numbers ought to balance out just fine.

Truth be told, Clinton started out with a recession, handed to him by Bush Sr.  His initial efforts were so far to the left that he lost the House of Representatives.  That early failure forced Clinton back to the center.  After that, the Clinton years went surprisingly well.  The 90s started with an American fear that the Japanese were going to own us and ended with a Japanese recession while America's wild ride slowed a bit.  For much of the Clinton presidency, gas was under a buck a gallon.  When it started to spike above a dollar, I can remember feeling annoyed because I was filling my car for something like $8/gallon.

I am not impressed by what Bush gave us over the course of his eight years in office.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 10:08AM #48
UwishUwereMe
Posts: 2,352
Obama is just NOT a friend of the Church.  George Bush was a big supporter of GBH, and the Church.  Face it, american politics and the Mormon Church are going to split, we are losing our foot hold in politics and that will make it harder for the Church to continue as we know it. 

Obama has terrible insight.  He paints such a rosey, friendly America.  The fact is that MOST of America is conservative and will be bitter for a long time unless he can pull a miracle out of his hat.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 17, 2009 - 4:29PM #49
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,207

UwishUwereMe wrote:

Obama is just NOT a friend of the Church.


How do you figure?

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Feb 18, 2009 - 10:31AM #50
UwishUwereMe
Posts: 2,352
98% of the Church is conservative.  Obama has not reached out to conservatives like he promised.  He stated that he would appoint conservative people to his cabinet.  No such luck.  And, by conservative, I mean REPUBLICAN, not Hillary Clinton.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook