The Bushists will be sparing no expense to convince the public

[BurtWorm]

that Clinton was to blame for 9-11. The revisionists will be out in full force starting now. (I heard one this morning on CSPAN. And it wasn't a crank. It was a well-spoken revisionist.)

[proud patriot]

1. Too bad for bush Americans aren't the fools he thinks we are

:hi:

[tom_paine]

3. You sure about that?

I'm not.

[shanti]

7. and neither am i

sad, isn't it?

[necso]

16. Agree entirely.

Look sometime at poll results showing people's (lack of) knowledge of common facts or how marketing effects people's thinking.

I have seen poll results, which I had no reason to doubt, showing that thirty-something percent of Americans believe that the sun orbits the earth.

We need to spend big time to counter repug lies, spin and distortions. Otherwise no matter how bad things are, we are going to loose, because too people in key states will believe the repug BS. Moreover, we can expect no significant help from the media in this regard.

The repugs will stop at nothing. They might only play it to a selected audience, but play it they will, ad nauseum.

[Skittles]

2. I don't think that tactic will work at all

I think Americans don't want to blame someone; they want answers on how to FIX things - like the economy, the war, the deficit. I think the blame-Clinton tactic will remind voters that Bush Inc has no answers.

[sendero]

39. I agree.....

..... not only that, but during the impeachment improglio, most Americans were having none of it. With approval ratings around 70%, most Americans saw they whole effort to smear Clinton as a pack of bullsh*t.

And most Americans have not forgotten how far the RW will go. The claim that this was Clinton's fault will simply not play in Peoria IMHO.

[Skittles]

HOWDY DESEO!

:hi:

[Sub Atomic]

4. So that's why Dick & Shrub don't want to testify

to the 9/11 commission yet Bill & Al have happily agreed.

That must mean that Dick & Shrub know that it was all Bill & Al's fault. The commission will discover this when they are interviewed and it will all be put to rest.


Don't you feel better now?

[McScotty007]

5. ideas

I will preface my comments by openly telling you that I am new to being politically active, so I'm not really sure whether I would consider myself a republican, a democrat, or somewhere in between and some of my friends told me this is a great place to ask questions/ receive answers, and it seems like you guys are pretty smart over all, so I wanted to start a dialogue with you if I could. I have many topics which interest me, so I wanted to hear you guys thoughts on them.

IRAQ:
I am more than dismayed that we have found no WMD's in Iraq. I don't know how the entire world was so wrong about this and I fully agree we should have waited for more conclusive proof, but I have a few problems with saying we should not have gone. First, why did Saddam kick everyone out if he was not operating or trying to creat another WMD program? I haven't heard either side really talk about it at all, and that seems to me to be an argument in favor of him beng taken out. Second, even if he had no WMD, Iraqi's no longer have to live under a brutal dictatorship, where he gassed his own people and even if the new constitutional society which is attempting to be put in place fails, then at least they will have had a shot at freedom. I do not want anyone to rant about the fact that we gave him the gas in the first place, it still doesn't give him the right to use it on his own people/ The war still does not sit easy with me, but I feel like the world is safer with him captured. Also, I have read reports that France and Russia's unwillingness to go along was based on Oil contracts they were likely to try and secure. Anyways, please tell me where you think I have gone wrong on this topic. I realize it is limited, but just initial feelings

Government:
I still don't know how I feel about big government/little government. I have always been very independant and I don't like the thought of when I reach the upper limits of earning potential as a lawyer, that if Kerry is in the White House, his goal is to take half of my earnings for other people. I've always felt like a safety net is supposed to be there for those who can't/won't take care of themselves, but I feel like individual donations for charity is the best way, rather than government mandate. Individual responsibility is very important to me, and it scares me when I see a federal program being created for everything under the sun. I know George Bush is the worst spender of all, so should I just assume that large government spending is here to stay?

Please ask me more questions on other topics or offer comments. I would like to start a dialogue. You guys can be my litmus test for the 2004 election. LOL

[bobbieinok]

6. Saddam did NOT kick everyone out; W told them to get out

...

[McScotty007]

9. hmmm

really, I thought he kicked them out and restricted the UN teams mulitple times? he being Saddam

[seabeyond]

24. if i remember correctly

bush started putting the soldiers in kuwait. adn saddam let the inspectors in. he wouldnt let them in, kicked them out in 98 i believe. but they went in in fall i think of 2002. adn bush kept building the military and saddam in and out on stalling. right before bush went in (not that he did, the soldiers did) then saddam started cooperating more. just prior to going in bush called the inspectors out

[einniv]

42. You need to be more exact about dates and which gulf war etc

if you want any meaningful answers and not just raw confusion.

The reason the inspectors were made to leave in 1998 is becasue Hussein accused them of being spies.

Ends up, they were indeed spies.

So it becomes pretty tough to justify using that as an excuse. (Unless of course the vast majority of people are under-informed, which they are).

[seabeyond]

46. above

they were talking the inspectors were in before second iraq war. there was confusion, and i was saying they were kicked out by saddam in 98, as you say, and they were not allowed back in til i believe fall of 2002 and that was because bush had started sending troops along the kuwait border. and when he decided to go to war, he had the inspectors come back out.

why do people act like i am on bush's side, whenever i relate history. it wasnt that long ago. it doesnt mean i am on bush side, that i validate the war. i knew when he had the soldiers go over, and un was able to get the inspectors back in, didnt matter, he was going to war. he sent the soldiers there, and he wasnt going to bring them home. going to un and having inspectors go in was all a con, and in time they were going to be ready for battle and that was it.

[Disturbed]

8. Assumptions

" First, why did Saddam kick everyone out?"

He didn't. Remember Hans Blix? Bushco couldn't wait for the Blix team to find out what Kay found out because the "excuse" to invade wouldn't have been there. Bushco forced the Blix team to leave so the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation could go forth.

[McScotty007]

10. i think you may be right

but aren't they better off without Saddam's torture teams?

[NC_Nurse]

13. They don't seem too happy to me.

Most of Saddam's transgressions occurred back in the days we were funding him against the Iranians.

Besides, when did we get so interested in other countries leaders? Supposedly we went in to protect ourselves from an "imminevt threat". Now the Bush administration is trying to spin it as "we needed to free the Iraqis and "Saddam was a dangerous man". How dangerous could he be with to us no WMD? and no terrorist connection that they played up either?

[jpak]

25. We supported those "torture teams" for nearly a decade

under Reagan and Poppy Bush.

And we they did NOTHING when I-raq attacked and nearly sunk the USS Stark - killing 37 American sailors.

This was an act of war - where were the Republicans then???

(clue - kissing Saddam's murderous ass)

When Democrats passed the Prevention of Genocide Act to punish Saddam for gassing the Kurds - what did Reagan do???

He threatened a veto - and Poppy opposed sanctions against Iraq right up to the day Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Republicans made passionate love to Saddam for years - torture teams and all - and they didn't care what he did to his people or neighbors.

[McScotty007]

27. but you're missing my point

Despite all of our past transgressions in the region, why allow him to stay any longer?

[jpak]

35. We did not invade Iraq because Saddam had rape rooms.

This war was based on a heap of ChimpCo lies about WMD and links to 9/11.

The deaths of 10,000 Iraqi civilians for a pack of Republican Lies is not justified in my opinion.

I put this war right up there with the Trail of Tears as one the worst crimes committed by an American President.

That people still defend this horror is beyond belief.

Troll on...

[sendero]

40. I'll make this simple for you.

There are any number of problems in the world that need correcting. But you have to balance the gain achieved by correcting them against the cost of doing so.

To get rid of this one lousy dictator we have :

1) Lost over 500 American lives.
2) Killed over 10,000 Iraqi citizens
3) Destabilized a country that will likely not see stability for a long time
4) Spent 200 BILLION dollars more or less.

Was it worth it? Hell no. We could have kept UN inspectors in Iraq forever for a few million dollars. Hussein would not have been able to so much as break wind without us being on his case.

There is no justification for this war, period.

[City Lights]

31. Do these people look "better off" to you?

[salinen]

11. I can answer the first Mc

In fact very early on it was eluded to, then shoved under the rug. Saddam could not openly state he had no weapons. He was working to secure his own regime and he needed to have a strong deterrent to political uprisings within Iraq. The U.S. knew he had no deterrent, but since he could not advertise the fact, it gave bushco license to invade. If our C.I.A. is really that inept, we could be invaded by Tahiti.

Welcome

[McScotty007]

12. but why

should a regime like that be allowed to stand. My only problem is it seems like people are on the side of saying Saddam should have stayed in power just because you hate Bush. I don't like him, but I don't understand why a despotic tyrant should be in power. thanks for the welcome

[NC_Nurse]

14. There's plenty of them out there...

we only are being so altruistic because they have oil and some strategic value to the Bush administration's goals.

[McScotty007]

15. very true

I guess I just feel like it is our responsibility to rid the world of them.

[NC_Nurse]

19. So you son't believe in the Sovereignty

of nations? Should it be okay for other countries to invade our country and kill thousands of civilians because they believe Bush is a tyrant who needs to be removed?

[McScotty007]

22. look

Saddam was obviously a tyrant. We are not. Simple as that.

[DrWeird]

26. We're not?

But we're the ones who trained Saddam in the first place. We were the ones that put him in power. We're the ones who got him to invade Iran. We sold him the chemical weapons. We gave the green light to invade Kuwait.

Everything Saddam did that was tyrannical was backed up by the United States.

You can't say Saddam was tyranical and the US was not.

Simple as that.

[Old and In the Way]

44. Sorry, nothing about Iraq is that simple

Here's a detailed link that cites official government documents on how we enabled Saddam and contributed to the wars conducted on our behalf with Iran. We ere giving aid to Saddam up to the day before we declared war on him.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990
Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd.
15 July 2000 (updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen Rangwala).
Before 1980
• Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."<1>
1980
• The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a report that Iraq has been ‘actively acquiring’ Chemical Weapons capacities since the mid-1970s.<2>
1982
• Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.<3> The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and military technology.<4>
1983
• A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.<5>
• Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.<6> A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.<7>
• Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.<8> Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.<9> Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,<10> officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
• Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.<11> Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.<12>
1984

[seabeyond]

29. in this countries history

and culture there was a reason they sit themselves up as they did. with the culture wars ect....a man like saddam was needed to keep the country together and somewhat law abiding. for us to walk in and think we can bring it to harmony, we cant.

we cannot do for another country or whole area, they have to do. they have to have the want to have more

[BurtWorm]

45. Was Aristide one of these tyrants it was our responsibility to get rid of?

Do "we" have more of a responsibility to purge the world of tyrants (or whoever "we" deem to be tyrants) or to help create the conditions in which democracy can flourish? Was it possible to create the conditions for democracy in Haiti without ousting Aristide (the legitimately elected president of Haiti)?

If you want to understand why Bush is held in such contempt on the left, it's because his commitment to democracy, as evidenced here, in Haiti and Venezuela among other places, is transparently nonexistent.

[seabeyond]

47. we..........

cannot create the democracy. the people of these countries have to be the ones to do it. and outing some leader is not going to do it. what we would then have to do, is give enough money to totally create their infrastructures, and create business enviroments, and create health cares, and education systems, and then we..........can help them to step into a democracy. after we bring all the warring factions to harmony. the bummer thing, we.............dont have enough money to do this with country after country after country. we............dont/arent doing it with our country.

if we are going to go in and take out the person running the country then we have just accepted the responsibility of giving this country all those above and if we dont provide for the country then we have become the worse in irresponsible.

we can not fix everything and everyone...............

it would be nice, but a bit arrogant to feel we can even come close to doing this.

there are other ways.

[BurtWorm]

49. We can help create the conditions for democracy

by, for example, offering support for legitimately elected democratic governments, however they define it. We should not be in the business of democratizing countries against their will. We should not be in the business of forcing other countries to do or be anything. But we are supposed to be a democratic country, and we ought to support democratic movements and democratic governments when they seek our support.

[seabeyond]

50. i assume

and that is never a good thing, you are talking haiti. when did this old army, that had taken over the government not to long ago, say they were into democracy and that is why they took over haiti in a coup again.

firstly

secondly bush doesnt do this for democracy, he has stated from day one he is not into nation building. he is not into helping other countries, was part of his platform. his reason is cause, doesnt matter about them, it is good for us,. and that is what it is about. he was clear going over to iraq wasnt for the people. it was

9/11 to get the terrorist, (that werent there and we knew)
wmb's
and nuclear bombs

he clearly told the world on a number of occasions was not to help the people in democracy, we are not a nation that does that.

he only started using that when his three reasons fell apart

it is on video

if the intent is to help a country, it is more the kosovo type situation bringing the u.n. and europe, their back yard, and giving them the responsibility, and not out to profit. and dictate how the create and form in our government. they have to create their world in their words.

now we are going to create bush as the one looking to help all these countries into democracies, that is the hugest of jokes. i love him talking freedoms for iraq, as he enthusiastically takes our freedoms away in glee

[BurtWorm]

54. You totally misunderstand me!

That old army is clearly antidemocratic, which is why Aristide wanted to disband it in the first place. I criticize the Bushists--and the French and the Canadians, for that matter--for not helping Aristide preserve Haitian democracy, for allowing their distaste for a poor person's president and a leftist override the honor and justice of nurturing Haiti's fledgling democracy by lending aid to a democratically elected president in a dictatorship-prone nation. Of course honor, justice and democracy have absolutely nothing to do with the way the US and Europe rule the world. I'm not naive. But neither am I stupid enough to believe Bush has any interest in creating democracies (or that "creating" democracies is a worthwhile--and incorruptible--cause for any US president to take up, for that matter).

I started this thread because I'm fully aware of the revisionist games the Bushists are going to play to get the media to parrot its line that a) Clinton and Democrats are responsible for the lack of security that made 9-11 possible; b) the Bushists didn't want war but because they were wise enough to know it was inevitable, we have not had a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11; c) Bush is in the class of presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Truman in having a vision for a new American century; d) etc., etc., etc. This is the game they'll be playing in the next year, and it won't just be that idiot Scott McLellan and those dopes Novak, Gigot, et al. making these cases. There will be books coming out from Regnery and Free Press and Basic Books getting neo-con authors on Charlie Rose and Meet the Press and on the covers of Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, TNR, etc., etc., etc. They will be pulling out all the stops to make this insane case sound more sane than any case ever made.

[seabeyond]

59. yup i totally

miss understood you. yet totally understood you here. thanks. i agree.........watching hardball going thru bush's ads right now, feeling kinda down then go and read your post. shaking head, yup

[salinen]

21. Not because I hate Bush

which I do. Had Clinton done the same, it would have been equally as bad. Sanctions ruined Iraq. I went to college in the early 80's with many Iraqi students. Smart, well educated Iraqis. If you want despotic, Kim fits that description. We should be in the business of encouraging reform, not militarily forcing reform. It never works. If I was an Iraqi, and had a relative blown to bits by a daisy cutter, I would dedicate my life toward revenge. I'd bet everyone living in Iraq has either a family member, or knew someone devastated by the U.S. military.

[Old and In the Way]

41. Why not invade North Korea?

They really do have WMD. They have a brutal dictator that is absolutely keeping the NK people in a horrible starvation typr existance. So why not invade?

As bad as Saddam was, Iraq had the most progressive society in the ME prior to DS1. Women had political power in that secular society. There was health care and education available for all.

His biggest problem was trusting Poppy. They had it in for SH because he was outgrowing his CIA masters.

We invaded Iraq because we knew SH was a defanged dictator. We invaded because we needed the oil and new bases since SA was kicking us out.

Bush is now trying to change the causus belli to "Saddam was evil" because the lies he used to justify the invasion are non-existant.

What have we accomplish in Iraq? We've got the world pissed off at us. We gotten 500 Americans killed and many thousands with terrible lifelong wounds. We can't get the oil because the pipelines are being sabotauged, so our costs continue to be unsubsidized. And we've helped OBL and the radical fundies in their quest to create a pan-Islamic state in the ME.

I can't possibly believe anyone, other than the Republican corporate war profiteers, would try to justify this action in Iraq.

[einniv]

43. Please show me one post that stated

Hussein should be in power becasue "we hate Bush"

People gave you the reasons but you don't want to hear them. To boot it is apparent that you know next to nothing about the situation. (After all this time how could someone not know that the reason claimed , and later confirmed!!, for kicking the inspectors out in 98 was because they were abusing their positions)

I'm sorry but the more reasonable question is. Why should anyone "debate" you when you don't even know the facts.

If you are uninformed and asking a legit question then fine. But then you proceed to argue with the people who answer you when you clearly know less than they do about it!!

Welcome to my ignore list Troll.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

60. Saddam was a place-holder to keep a balance of power so oil would flow.

Good for you for asking "why?"

Everything that the US Gov't does is for geopolitical reasons, not morality. If some people (almost always foreigners out of sight) have to die so that there is a cheap guarenteed oil supply to prop up our corporate-owned economy, that's what will happen.

The US encouraged Saddam to stage a coup in Iraq in 1959 because the previous ruler was too independent from the US and UK, even kind of USSR-leaning. Can't have that. CIA had Saddam kill a few thousand 'commies' to solidify Baathist Party power in the sixties. He became 'supreme ruler' in 1979, just in time to attack Iran.

When the US/UK-installed Shah of Iran was deposed (remember our people being hostages '79-'80?) in a wave of religious fervor, the US was worried that the Saudi Arabs would get religion too and depose the playboy-reading whiskey-drinking ruling family that stayed in power with secret police and torture and beheadings. That would threaten our Saudi oil supply. Can't have that.

So Saddam, our CIA employee-of-the-month in the Middle East office of USA Inc., was encouraged to invade Iran so religion wouldn't mess with our oil supply. The US gave weapons and intel to both sides so neither would win, just be weakened. 8,000,000 dead. Nice, hunh?

But now Saddam is broke from the long war and pissed at Kuwait for doing a little slant drilling and messing with oil prices. The US ambassador, April Glaspie, tells Saddam that he can go ahead and take a little Kuwait as a reward.

But Saddam, the hungry growing boy, takes the whole thing! OOPS!

How embarrasing for the Republican-former-CIA-head who's supposed to be a Strong Defender, not like those peace-nik Democrats.

But now the US public can be cured of 'Vietnam Syndrome,' that brief public distaste for mass-slaughter as foreign policy, and GO STOMP A BAD GUY FOR JESUS! Thousands of Iraqis killed, infrastructure destroyed so that thousands more die during the sanctions of the nineties. BUT-
the US gets to put a big military footprint in Saudi Arabia to protect OUR OIL supply, make people see the US as Superman Jesus in a Cowboy Hat saving the day against...our own employee. Oh yeah- and pisses off some guy named Osama bin Laden who George H.W. Bush trained to be a really effective killing machine.

So the reason that Saddam was kept in power was as the US thug in a neighborhood that had OUR OIL, first against a Soviet influence for the Cold War, and then against Iran during the Islamist Revolution.

When it was useful for the neocons to go claim control of the neighborhood themselves instead of by proxy, they did. They just downsized an old employee so they could do a 'better job' than he did. And in so doing, put our treasury into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex (mostly called Halliburton and Raytheon) and got Americans to give up their Constitution and remilitarize the entire culture for a corporate take-over of the planet.

So It All Works Out, Doesn't It? Except For All The Dead People.

[seabeyond]

62. d*mn

this is good. i hope you dont mind, i copied to send a handful of friends.

i knew all that stuff, but had never put it together as you have

[AngryYoungMan]

18. Welcome to DU!

This is indeed the place for the discussion you want to have.

I don't have time at this precise moment to go into detail on all your questions, but I'm around here fairly often.

The only point I would make quickly in passing is that, from the big/little government standpoint, Bush has presided over the largest GROWTH of government spending probably since World War II.

This is, of course, deficit spending. According to Paul O'Neill's recent book about his time as Bush's Treasury Secretary, Bush himself was unsure about the second round of tax cuts for the rich, arguing that they would grow the deficit. Dick Cheney told him, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

The last record deficit was Reagans, created the same way: military spending (which is just a boon to Republicans' wealthy donors in industry) combined with tax cuts. Kind of like maxing out your credit cards and then leaving the bills to your kids. (Reagan's deficits were turned into multi-trillion-dollar SURPLUSES under Clinton, which, of course, Bush II spent on tax cuts for the rich.)

You can't get more money out of the system than you put in, of course, unless you go into the red and leave the problems for the future. This is the Republican approach, and it's not just my opinion; it's a fairly easy argument to document.

Republicans like to cut spending by eliminating social programs. In other words, the money is given to the rich, and then the poor have to pay. In this way, the Republican constituency (the wealthy, and people who buy into their carefully constructed justifications like "trickle-down") wins, and the rest of us lose.

More debate to come, I'm sure...anyway, welcome to DU.

[McScotty007]

23. thanks for the information

[Qutzupalotl]

Here are some things to consider:

First, why did Saddam kick everyone out if he was not operating or trying to creat another WMD program?
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Saddam did not kick out the weapons inspectors--the U.S. pulled them out. He believes that after many years of successful, invasive inspections, Saddam gave up trying to develop WMDs around 1998, and had none when we went in.

Second, even if he had no WMD, Iraqi's no longer have to live under a brutal dictatorship, where he gassed his own people and even if the new constitutional society which is attempting to be put in place fails, then at least they will have had a shot at freedom.
I will grant that a shot at freedom may be better than living under Saddam; but we have to get stability and basic necessities to the Iraqi people, or they'll feel they were better off before. None of this excuses the president's lying about the reasons for war, which is a high crime. So is toppling a country that didn't attack us, and had no intention of doing so. We had no right to intervene.

Also, I have read reports that France and Russia's unwillingness to go along was based on Oil contracts they were likely to try and secure.
This was a factor. Another eye opener is the revelation that Cheney's secret task force documents included maps of the oil fields in Iraq, and a list of international suitors for contracts there. That's from the summer of 2001, before Al Qaeda attacked us. In other words, they were planning to invade Iraq no matter what, and the whole WMD charade was an excuse "we could all agree on", in Wolfowitz' words. Rather than buy oil on the open market, they chose to invade another country to get theirs.

I still don't know how I feel about big government/little government.
Your candor is welcome. I'll try not to force my ideas on you. :)

if Kerry is in the White House, his goal is to take half of my earnings for other people.
Okay, forget what I just said. :) Remember that half your federal taxes go for defense. That's something we all benefit from. (Of course, unnecessary wars are a detriment to everyone, but I digress.) Some of your tax money goes to pave your streets and highways. Some goes to police and libraries and firefighters. Some of it goes to prisons that keep violent criminals out of your neighborhood. So the benefit goes to you, not someone else. You get to live in a society where everyone gets a decent public education, for instance. There is an unrealistic picture painted by the right that your tax money goes straight into the pockets of those lazy folks who don't want to work. You'd be surprised how much of it pays the salaries of politicians promoting a plutocracy.

I know George Bush is the worst spender of all, so should I just assume that large government spending is here to stay?
Well, you can thank him for turning a surplus into a deficit and extending the debt beyond the forseeable future. Not to mention an estimated $1 trillion for an unnecessary war and occupation of Iraq.

[asjr]

38. I have been reading the answers to your questions.

Marvelous posting here from DUers. All have been articulate and knowledgable. If you are listening you are learning something. But I fear,from some of your answers to them, you don't really care. If I am wrong please forgive me. Have you been listening to the neocons and believe every word they say? I'm sorry, but your questioning just doesn't ring true.

[klook]

17. It's always the Dems' fault

...says the G.O.P., but isn't it funny that sometimes it takes 4 years, and sometimes 8? The economic problems in the late '70s and early '80s were all Jimmy Carter's fault (only took 4 years). Now whatever problems we have (9/11, economy, Cubs losing, etc.) are all Clinton's fault.

It took a full 8 years for him to screw everything up, though. Evil blackheart that he is, Clinton left us a time bomb that would go off only after he left office! :crazy:

[McScotty007]

20. lol

It is funny in politics how everything is everyone else's fault. The technology boom drove those great years in the 90's which deflated so rapidly. Although I guess we can blame Gore since he invented the internet. LOL

[NC_Nurse]

28. when you say "Saddam was a tyrant

simple as that", I agree. But do you think what people in the Middle East and other countries around the world think of US now? Sitting here, it looks like we are the heroes of the world, but actually our standing in the international community was badly damaged by this Iraq fiasco.

[McScotty007]

30. I agree

But from the way I view it, being unpopular in the short run is better. It seems like alot of the wounds from the war will be healed easily.

[salinen]

32. Iraqis know that

Saddam, with the aid of Rumsfeld (shake hands Rummy) gassed the Kurds. The Kurds are not "his own people." The Kurds have been attempting to overthrow the government of Iraq for a long time. That's o.k., but to paint Kurds as a non-threatening group to Saddam, is what is the lie. Very similar to our own Civil War.

[McScotty007]

33. I

would want to overthrow Saddam Hussein too. I think the horror stories of his regime get lost in all of the politics. The world, in my view, is better without him in power.

[Qutzupalotl]

34. But it was also better when

we supported internationally-recognized standards for starting wars.

[DrWeird]

36. Yes, the Iraqis are much better off...

now that the killings have stopped.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

37. 143 dead

yesterday or was it the day before yesterday,

unless the number went up from what i heard

innocents

[bobbyboucher]

53. How much will it cost again?

Just curious if you know.

Keep us posted on all things Iraq after you enlist and spend a year over there. We are all anxious to hear from you.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

61. The horror stories are US-complicit. And the Crusades will last 1000 years

Yes, Saddam was a monster. And he was a US-created monster, just like Osama bin Laden. Don't forget that. Like many other murderous dictators. The US government tells you that it is Jesus and acts like Satan. Sad but true.

Everything Saddam did, he did as a CIA employee. Millions dead.
And the US killed over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians to 'get him' just in this war so far, never mind Gulf War I.

The Crusades of the Middle Ages, from around 1100-1400 AD were European Christian Armies attacking the Middle Eastern 'heathens.'

Those Crusades are very well-remembered by Arabs and this new one will be remembered for another 1000 years of terrorism, distrust, revenge.

[bobbyboucher]

52. Whatev.

If your son was dead you wouldn't say that. That wound never heals. Even for Bushbots.

And the jury is still out on the Iraq war. It could all spiral into chaos and massive loss of life. Not that it already hasn't. But for some reason I don't think the loss of life thing matters much to you, or Bushboy.

If the American people were told the truth and the true cost, they never would have supported it. I never did anyway, but I know enough about Bush/Cheney and their cabal of liars to know their real agenda from the beginning.

Oh yeah, when are you enlisting?

[bobbyboucher]

51. The old "Al Gore invented the internet" ruse.

You can do better than that I hope. Maybe not.

[Cat Atomic]

48. I really don't think blaming Clinton will work for them.

On it's own it might work fine. But when taken in the context of all Bush's other buck-passing (CIA is to blame for the Iraq invasion, sailors are to blame for the "Mission Accomplished" sign, etc.), it's just stink.

[BurtWorm]

55. When I say spare no expense, I mean spare no expense.

They're going to purchase the services of some very high class whores who will be selling this revisionism all year long in "scholarly" journals on the right and books from right wing presses. They're going to repeat the lines over and over and over and over until the parrots in the media have them down pat. They're going to make their revisionism the Official History.

[napi21]

56. Dumb as this sounds, we need a ...........

jingle. You know, the kind of cute chort little song that you hear and can't forget. The ones you hear and instantly think of the product, or find yourself humming while you're working.

I know it sounds weird, but stuff like that keeps your candidate in the public awareness. Phil Graham trued it in his Fl. campaign, but he had a really dumb song.

[BurtWorm]

57. How about spongmonkeys?

"We love the moon
We love John Kerry too"

[OneTwentyoNine]

58. Well...If Clinton did such a crap job then Bush should have been on it..

On January 21st 2000,about a FULL nine months before the attacks. Go back and look at all of Chimps speeches at that time.

Where are the speeches telling Murikans how we could expect an attack at any time because of Clinton's lack of dealing with a pending terrorist attack?? I be damned if I heard Bush address a terrorist failure by the outgoing administration in the days shortly after he took office. The failure is ALL YOURS Chimp.

David