You mean the 9/11 that happened because the Sudan offered to turn over bin laden three times and Clinton refused… that 9/11.
More to the point, we retaliated against the people who did that.
Jimmy Carter- gasp- froze their assets. And talked to them. And talked to them. And talked to them some more.
Okay, guy.
You do realize the accusation that there was this supposed “October Surprise” deal (made by former Carter adminstration official Gary Sick) was investigated by an independent counsel, even though there was absolutely no evidence other than a whacky conspiracy theory.
The investigation found that at the time that George H. Bush was secretly having a meeting with Iranian officials in Paris. (Sick’s book had the CIA flying him over there on an SR-71) the Secret Service had him in Kennebunkport.
So that was a novelty. A Special Counsel who got to the point, realize it was BS, and moved on.
More to the point, Jimmy Carter was the guy who let the Iranians commit an act of war and essentially let them get away with it. Gutless.
As for later giving Iran arms - six years later- yup, we sold them obsolete weapons for four times their price in exchange for their help with other idiots who were holding hostages in Lebanon. Incidently, the whole “hostage taking” fad wouldn’t have happened had Carter acted decisively in Iran.
No need to “read a book” guy, I was around when all that stuff went down.
Do you REALLY want me to drag out the list of quotes from all the Democrats, including your hero, John “catch my medals” Kerry, who thought invading Iraq was a dandy idea at the time?
You know, if you change your user name to “Bush Apologist” you’ll encounter less overt hostility here and have more interesting, engaged discussions with Dems. The Mods can help you out easily, but maybe having interesting, engaged discussions isn’t what you’re all about. Just trying to help.
Based on intelligence that was willfully misrepresented to them. Still, for anyone to claim that the Iraq War was justified because of 9/11 is ignorance of the first degree.
I don’t know who “everybody in the world” is…
Since only 2 billion of the world’s 7 billion people are Christians, I don’t think “everybody” really has an opinion.
So let’s get this down to the brass tacks, what do Americans believe, and why doesn’t Obama get out there with his “I love Darwin” T-shirt.
CBS news-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml
55% believe God created humans in their present form. (Including 47% of Kerry voters)
27% believe God guided the process of evolution.
13% believe God was not involved at all.
Now, trust me, I am as horrified at this as most of you are. But the argument that Bachmann doubts evolution is some whacky, far out view doesn’t resonate with the fact that most Americans think the same thing.
Yes, part of the reasons are the Churches, part of the reason is the Public Schools you guys love so much, (you know, the ones where 20% of the graduates can’t read their diplomas, and don’t I dare criticize them) do such an awful job teaching science. But part of the reason is just human nature. Most people WANT there to be a God who cares about them. To say that man only exists because of a random process called “natural selection” is pretty much saying that there isn’t.
So you think that only conservatives thought Saddam was a bad guy?
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” S
“[W]e 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.”
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” Rep.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. 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.”
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”
Bush left three years ago, not too sure why you still want to talk about him…
And frankly, I suspect that I get hostility here for the same reason I got hostility from the far right on other boards. You guys have your mindsets, and you won’t let facts get in the way.
Here’s my point on Iraq (not sure how we got to Iraq, but there you are). Democrats were all for the war when it started. Some of them were for taking out Saddam before Bush even came along. Some of them probably weren’t too keen on the idea, but realize they needed to go along so they’d look hawkish, and the war would be over in about a month and then they could go back to ripping Bush on the economy.
Then they realized that their base really, really hates wars, especially ones started by Bush.
Now, my own opinion is that the Iraq War was unnecessary and poorly executed, but I’m not going to get weepy about Saddam Hussein and frankly, I’m not sure why any of you guys are. The world is a better place without him in it.
Couple points here, Bob.
First, you might be able to give Joe Sixpack a pass because, yeah, he was looking at what he was presented.
The folks in Congress got to see ALL the raw data, including the dissenting opinions on the conclusions drawn by the CIA (which I should point out- was run at that time by a Clinton appointee named George Tenet.) These people have top secret clearences and have access to information we don’t.
My guess is, most of them probably really had doubts, but didn’t want to be the guy who was being an apologist for Saddam, who was after all, a genocidal monster who engendered no sympathy from anyone.
I should also point out it was the concensus of not only our intelligence agencies, but most of the others, including MI-6 and the Mossad, that Saddam had these weapons. This was in large part because Saddam wanted the world and his own people to think he had these weapons on the theory they wouldn’t mess with him if they thought he did.
So a pipehead goes into a store and starts waiving around a toy pistol, and a cop drills him through the forehead. Not going to blame the cop.
Now, where I do take issue with Bush is how he actually executed the conflict. He went in with too few troops, he disbanded the Iraqi Army, he deferred to ineffective commanders like Sanchez before replacing him with Petreus. I also think he should have raised taxes to pay for the war and started a draft to have enough manpower to actually fight it. Those moves would have been politically unpopular, though.
Final point. The person who first drew a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden was - Bill Clinton.
When Bill Clinton bombed Afghanistan and the Sudan in 1998, he specifically laid out his case for doing so. Keeping in mind this was before anyone had ever heard of Osama Bin Laden, Clinton alledged that Iraqi agents were assisting Bin Laden’s people in producing chemical weapons. That’s what bombing the pharmacuetical factory in the Sudan was all about.
Well, personally, I resent your labelling yourself a “recovering” Republican, when your positions make plain the fact that you despise Democrats, and would never consider voting for a Democrat on a national ticket. (You may have personal preferences in local elections that permit you to vote for a Democrat under certain circumstances, but I’m talking about national tickets here.) Your undisguised contempt for Obama, who’s a pretty moderate Democratic candidate and a VERY moderate Democratic President, marks you as a staunch and very loyal Republican supporter, so your username just highlights your posing as a more centrist voter than you really are, in an attempt to engage people in discussion. You’re really not interested in a discussion, though, just in ideologizing and persuading people that your right-wing, Tea Party views are the correct ones, which is a tiresome conversation for many people, certainly for me. My answer on that one is “Go, vote for whomever you like. It’s hopeless to discuss politics with the likes of you. You’re not interested in learning anything, and your contemptuous position on education confirms that.” But I do find it disingenuous of you to position yourself as being open to a discussion, and I’d like to discourage people from wasting their energy, as I am here, in engaging with you. You claim to have approved of Clinton’s handling of the economy, but I’m quite sure you actively opposed his election, his re-election, and his continuing in the Presidency during the impeachment fiasco (as you claim to have detested Bush, but you continue to defend his foreign and economic policies), telling me that you have retrospectively adopted these positions as protective covering, but if Bush could somehow run against Bill Clinton today, you’d find a way to rationalize voting for Bush. So what does that tell you? It tells me you’re not worth engaging with.
If we can steer this thing back to Bachmann and allow Recovering Republican to post an “ask the Recovering Republican” thread somewhere else to give his official Republican talking points on the last fifty years there: I think this article is true, and it’s something I’ve thought about Bachmann and Palin.
You can pretty much get away with anything when every gaffe is the media’s fault, and since the demographic here is people who have no functioning epistemology beyond, “well I think ______,” there’s no way to combat fiction with fact or preposterous claims with eye rolls.
Actually, I despise everyone… and frankly, if it were a contest between Romney and Obama, I’d vote for Obama. because I really, really despise Mormons.
Actually, my contempt for Obama has little to do with whether he is a moderate or a liberal or a communist. It has to do with the fact he’s INCOMPETANT. Frankly, if he were a total socialist but got everyone back to work, I wouldn’t have an issue with him. It’s that we are three years into this recession, and things haven’t gotten back to where they were yet that has me perturbed.
I’ve been very critical of republicans on threads, including Bush. I just don’t drink the BDS koolaid. I’ve also praised Obama on things I’ve thought he did right, like Killing Bin Laden or bailing out GM. I think the problem is you can’t make the distinction between the teabagger who screams “Obama is a Muslim Communist who wants to destroy America, Glenn Beck said so!” and a guy like myself who says, “You know, the economy has actually gotten worse under this guy, and I don’t think he knows what he is doing.”
It strikes me that you are the one with the problem, not me. Frankly, I haven’t advocated anything “Tea Party” and I don’t agree with them on their economic views. I think we need to raise taxes and pay our way on programs, most of which we really can’t afford to cut right now. I also think we need to get a handle on government spending.
Here’s the thing. I have no use for the hard left, and I have no use for the hard right. I think it is awful that we have a system that these fringes pick the candidate, and we are left with these “lesser of two evil” choices every four years.
For education- well, guy, I guess here’s my problem with that. Clinton sent Chelsea to a private school. The Obamas are doing the same. Richie Daley went to De La Salle just like his dad did. (And I did, too. Go Meteors!) Dan Lipinski went to the same catholic grammer school I did. (His sister was in my class.) So I guess I have a very hard time reconciling Democratic support for Public education with the fact they won’t subject their own kids to it.
Actually, I thought Clinton should have been removed for the same reason I think Nixon should have been removed. They broke the law and abused their offices.
I approve of the economy that Clinton had, how much he had to do with it is up for debate. Really, CLinton and Bush had kind of the same economic policy. Lax regulation, lots of free trade, etc. And actually, their foreign policies weren’t all the different, either. So really, the choice between the two was more one of character than policy.
Since neither Bush nor Clinton can’t run again, your hypothetical is meaningless. And, no I didn’t vote for him in 1992 or 1996, but I didn’t campaign for Bush Sr. or Dole either (like I did for Reagan in 1980 and 1984). I seriously considered Ross Perot in 1992.
Okay, Guy, I read that article. It was kind of Juvenile.
The MSM claimed Gacy was born in Waterloo, Iowa when he was born in Chicago, and lived in Waterloo for a short time.
the real problem is the media, which is predominately liberal, doesn’t connect with about half the country.
It goes back to the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT I made about how you guys mock her views on evolution, (which are wrong), but they are held by the vast majority of people.
I doubt you did, since you immediately “refute” a point the article itself clears up.
Why is that legitimate? Or rather, what conclusion should we draw from the VERY LEGITIMATE POINT? That schools should teach common misconceptions as scientific facts? That it’s “wrong” to criticize politicians who want to pander to the public by insisting that common mythologies be taught as science? What?
I doubt anyone here is for using opinion polls to write science curriculum, and I doubt any American scientists fails to grasp that they’re an unpopular minority when it comes to holding fact-based world views.
Yes, I read that. I also saw where Salon (there’s an unbiased source) put a clown’s nose on Bachmann…
They also equated being a fan of the Duke as being like a racist, which would have come to a surprise to this Mexican lady I used to hang with who loved John Wayne.
The point is, the Media came up with a meme that was wrong. Neither John Wayne nor John Wayne Gacy were born in Waterloo, Iowa, although both lived there at one time or another. But Bachmann’s still the “clown” for saying it. Not the Media, which GOT IT WRONG, TOO!
Schools teach misconceptions all the time. Kids are taught in the early grades Columbus was trying to prove the world was round, but by High School, they teach them that he was just trying to find a way to get to India.
Fact is, you might as well present all sides, because people are just going to make up their minds. I went to a Catholic School where they taught Adam and Eve in Religion and Evolution in Science, made ham-handed attempts to reconcile the two. End of the day, I made up my own mind, and so will most people.
Nothing which has to do with my point.
Your point is that Bachmann’s beliefs are “crazy” because she thinks certain things are true. Not because she’s stupid, the woman’s a lawyer. But her philosophy is such that she cannot accept that we are simply the result of a random process called “Natural Selection”. Sorry, that really is what most Americans think, and not because they are ignorant. I’ve found arguing the point that most creationists and fundementalists are well aware of Darwinist theory, they just reject it.
THe fact is, you folks on the left are all for using Public Education for all sorts of political indoctrination, but somehow, we must uphold the highest scientific standards in discussing this one issue, and we cannot possibly let any other opinions in the door, ever.
I have a higher expectation of our schools and higher hopes for our children.
I see your point being that it’s OK for somebody to base science policy on fiction if it’s a popular fiction. I don’t think we should lay off criticizing people who are uninformed just because they are telling popular lies.
I don’t know how many times I should state that opinion polls don’t determine what’s true and what should be taught in schools or used to inform public policy. Hence Michele Bachmann isn’t off the hook for pandering to the ignorant. In fact, that’s what she’s being criticized for.
Indoctrination is right-wing rhetoric for “anything that isn’t our indoctrination.”
Then why do you support a public education system where 20% of them can’t read their diplomas? Frankly, I’d be less worried about whether or not they got the full Darwinist indoctrination and more concerned that they lack basic skills like reading, writing, math, simple history and civics..
I think attacking people’s deeply held moral beliefs is not a way to win them over.(again, for those playing along at home, I’m an agnostic and think talking snakes are kind of silly.)
My biggest criticism of the Republican Party is that they play the religious feelings of a lot of working folks and get them to vote against their own economic interests. But you guys play into their hands by trying to shove anti-religious messages down their throats.
You can state it all day, but since you are insisting that people PAY for those schools, then they have a say in what is taught there.
Simple enough solution. Set all the schools up as private corporations to be run by the parents who pay for them. You send your kids to your schools, we’ll send them to ours. Seems a fair enough solution.
Again, cite?
No way. What they think they know is nothing more than a crass caricature of what evolutionary biology actually is. They reject it without understanding any of the actual science behind it; that’s why so many of the arguments on the creationist side are so very, very lame. I know this from first-hand experience: I grew up in a church that showed anti-evolution movies all the time. All of them made false depictions of what evolution is and what the science is.
Bullshit. No one in the mainstream wants Public Education to be used to indoctrinate anyone. The people who have most politicized education are ALL on the right.
A lot of people holding a wacko opinion does NOT validate it or make it less wacko.
More utter shit. You have no cite for such this nonsense you’ve been spouting.
People cling to superstition and fantasy. That doesn’t make it valid.