Are my assumptions correct?
In the Clinton administration, when Iraq went against UN resolutions, it’s seams as though it was ok for him deploy American soldiers and bomb Iraq.
In the Bush administration, Iraq is still going against resolutions set forth by the UN. Now the Bush administration wants to go after Iraq by, you guessed it, deploying American soldiers and bomb Iraq.
If this is true. I think it’s safe to say that Rosie O’Stupid and Don 'a whatever and the rest of these so called peace lovers would be ok with this if Bush got a blow job by an intern.
CLinton dodn’t deploy hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Iraq-he used soldiers already deployed, and he launched missiles, he didn’t craft a WAR. Bush has deployed hundreds of thousands of men, and manipulated data and the public opinion to start a WAR!.
Blowjob or not, at least Clinton kept an eye on what was within his borders instead of starting war on the other side of the globe without the support of the UN or even his constituents.
december is our resident right-wing mouth piece, and democrat bashing one trick pony – endearing as that might be.
I’m not saying he is or isn’t anything else.
I’m merely comparing your (not you’re) apparent intelligence level to something that might have squeezed past his sphincter in a fit of Clinton-bashing.
Your arguments are reactionary and short-sighted. It seems to me that the only thing you hope for is to forward some anti-democrat/Clinton horse-shit by rote, in the hopes that we “sensitive” liberals will blow a gasket trying to refute you.
It’s all just entertainment to me. So by all means, bring up Clinton smoking a joint thirty years ago to prove that George Bush should be elected king, for all I give a turd.
Yes Ishtar, I pay attention, and know when things are fishy. Things are definitely a bit fishy with the president and his obsession os making the Iraq conflict into a full-blown war. There’s STILL no proof of Al-Qaeda and Hussein working with one another, and I doubt they ever will furnish the “proof” that it exists.
yme, nobody is disagreeing with “act of war”. I disagree with your use of an analogy of what Mr. Bush is doing and what President Clinton did. One launched weapons in a reaction to Iraq ignoring sanctions/inspection, and the other has put together a weak case that the international community and many in the US aren’t buying…as well as sapping the military and financial resources of a country(The U.S. for those of you who can’t follow), which is in dire need of support-both protection and economic help.
You’re ruining the reputation of December with your weak arguments and multiple posts on the same BS.
OK, now I’m laughing too hard to compose a suitably sarcastic response to yme idiotic OP.
yme, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Everyone actually secretly supports the war – we just can’t see past our unjust bias against Bush to realize it. If Clinton were to tear down international ties that took decades to build, we’d hold massive rallies to cheer him on. Everything Clinton does is right, by definition. Everything Bush does is wrong, also by definition. You’ve cracked the code. Good show, old bean.
What i want to know is, why do people like the OP consistently and pig-headedly assume that those who oppose Bush’s policies were huge Clinton fans? I strongly oppose Bush’s Iraq policy, but anyone who has read my posts on other threads will know that i also thought Clinton’s foreign policy in Somalia, Iraq and Kosovo was deserving of considerable criticism also.
I’m not interested in turning this in to a debate of my politics, only in pointing out that it’s moronic to assume:
a) that opposition to Bush = support for Clinton
and
b) that opposition to Bush’s policies needs to be justified with reference to Clinton.
There are plenty of reasons to oppose current US policy in Iraq without constantly making Bill Clinton the yardstick by which we judge such policy.
And i’ve got a question for yme: if you think it’s appropriate to question those who oppose Bush regarding their attitudes to Clinton, do you think it’s appropriate for them to question you about your attitudes to such things as America’s strong 1980s support for, and assistance in providing arms and money to Saddam Hussein? Surely if we’re going looking for historical consistency, we can go back further than one president?
“During the Clinton administration” would be a better beginning to this sentence.
"it’s seams as though"
“*t’s” is a contraction of “it is,” and is inappropriate in this sentence.
“[S]eams” are, among other things, junctions formed by sewing together pieces of cloth, leather, etc.; it seems that you were thinking of the homophone, “seems.”
"it was ok for him deploy American soldiers and bomb Iraq."
Insert “to” between “him” and “deploy” in order to complete the correct infinitive construction of the verb.
The antecedent of the pronoun “him” is unclear; you probably meant Clinton, but the awkward construction of the sentence leaves room for confusion.
"In the Bush administration"
See above regarding the use of “During” instead of “In.”
"you guessed it, deploying American soldiers and bomb Iraq."
This should read “bombing Iraq.”
"If this is true."
This is not a sentence.
"the rest of these so called peace lovers"
Replace “so called” with “so-called.” Compound and phrasal adjectives should generally be hyphenated.
"would be ok with this"
It’s unclear to what antecedent “this” refers. Rewrite the sentence.
"if Bush got a blow job by an intern"
This part of the sentence is probably acceptable, but in place of “by” the preposition “from” would probably be preferable. Alternatively, you could rewrite it thus: “if Bush was given a blow job by an intern.”
Thankyou for your attention.
**mhendo
Atlantic Monthly Word Police
(originally inducted January 23, 2003)
