The Liberal Lie - The Conservative Truth

I guess you missed all his speeches on TV, his sending Powell to the UN .... sending members of his administration to the talking heads shows ... all pushing for the invasion.

You say Bush did not push for the invasion? Wow, talk about trying to revise history. You are right up there with the people who claim there was no holocause.

 

No, Reagan was not perfect. Look at the one before him and the four after him, and there is no comparison. It is amazing. There are posts in this thread criticizing Reagan for this or that, and in the very same thread, posts back and forth about who is better, Clinton, Bush the First, or Bush the Second. I can tell you exactly who is the better between those three. None of them. By what standard are you comparing them against each other, liberalism or ineptness?

If there is one thing I blame Reagan for it is who he picked for VP. Had he picked someone different, this country would have been spared two Bushes and probably Clinton.

 

Amen to that. :thumbs:

 

Reagan did get us into the economic depression of the early 1990's, because of our military spending in the arms race against the (then) U.S.S.R. This was well worth it considering that the Communist Party in the Soviet Union went bankrupt & collapsed.

If Carter, George H.W. Bush, or Clinton had been in office during the 1980's, the Soviet Union would still be around today. I think Reagan did what he had to to stay ahead of the Soviets. There were times when the Soviets said they were going to cut back production of missiles, but never stayed true to their promise. The one time that Gorbachev actually was going to be true to his word, Reagan in a matter of speaking told him You can stop making missiles, we're going to keep making them. The Russians couldn't keep up.

 

“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.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“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.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from USA 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.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“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.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

“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.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace 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.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

“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.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“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.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“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…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“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.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“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.”
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“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.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“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. 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“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.”
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“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 …”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

 

I guess you missed Gore's speeches on WMDs, Clinton & Kerry's demands, and the U.N. regime change mandates.

And what's a "holocause ? Is it the reason behind a hologram ?

You sir, are a hateful, uninformed ignoramus.

And I never said Bush didn't push for the invasion. More of your putting words into people's mouths. I have always said it was a bi-partisan effort.

 

Thanx fo all that info, Mitch, but the revisionist's minds are made up. You don't wanna be labeled a "holocause" denier.

Like I said, the honest people know how this war got started.

 

Great information RevMitchell. Can we infer from what you posted and what the democrats have been saying since 2004 that they are fair weather friends or pernicious prevaricators?

 

both blamed on Bush, with the help of the fairy tale media. This statement you made certainly appears to be an attempt to absolve Bush of any responsibility for the war. As I said, it is his legacy and it will always be remembered as Bush's war.

Oh and about being mean .... who is it that continually calls? But I'm used to that and simply consider the source.

 

Curtis, I believe it is you who are ignorant of the truth in this matter. Iraq is Bush's war, period! He orchestrated and then created this disastrous war.

 

Again Curtis blows his top and calls another poster a name. And, as usual, without any penalty.

You know Curtis, I would not use the term you used, but I do believe you are completely wrong about the Iraqi War and who started it. I also believe you know it was Bush, but you won't admit you are wrong. I'm noticed you like to blame Clinton for all the world's ills, which is also ridiculous.

 

I was called a holocause denier, whatever that is.

If you want to join the chorus, go ahead. The honest folks know this war was started long before Bush came in. You can't face the fact the same people who are now calling for Bush/Cheney's heads are the ones that helped start this war, OKed waterboarding, etc...

And who blamed Clinton for everything ? Certainly not me. I guess like your buddy CTB, you need to put words in people's mouths when you have nothing else.

 

Wrong. Go back and read the post. I said that saying that G. Bush did not push for the invasion of Iraq was a rewriting of history and in league with the people who say there is no holocaust. It was a comparison, not accusing.

Did anyone before Bush send in ground forces?
Did anyone anywhere call it a war prior to G. Bush?

The answer is no. Don't try to rewrite history. It was Bush's war and will always be known as such.

 

Correct. The actions taken in Iraq during the Clinton years were to enforce the agreement that ended Poppy Bush's war. The new war began under Shrub, when he didn't allow Hans Blix and his team the opportunity to finish their inspections. Makes you wonder why "W" was afraid they'd find nothing, and he would have no pretext to invade.

 

It was a democrat congress who voted to give Bush the authority to ignore the constitution and invade. You leftist libbies can try to rewrite history, and follow yer reprobate heroes wanting their heads on a platter, but facts are stubborn things. Bush could not have invaded without the help of a democrat congress. And a couple of Clinton holdovers in the CIA. Those are facts.

 

Reagan's Record versus Bill Clinton's Record

Two things that clearly did not cause it are smaller government and lower taxes, because this legendary Reagan revolution barely happened. Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent—a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms—less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent—more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.

And taxes? Federal tax collections rose about a fifth in real terms under Reagan. As a share of GDP, they declined from 19.6 percent to 18.3 percent. After Clinton, they are up to 20 percent. It's hard to think of variations in this narrow range as revolutionary one way or the other. For most working Americans, the share of income going to taxes (including FICA) went up even under Reagan.

 

Interesting...

Are you going to give Michael Kinsley credit for those words ? They are his, you know. I caught you plagerizing posts when you posted under yer other, previous two names.

 

Yes and they were stupid to do so. Regardless, they would never have voted to invade if they had not been fed false information by the Bush administration. It was Bush who gave the order to invade, so it is his responsibility.

Like in the Navy, the Captain is responsible for all that goes on in the ship he commands. Harry Truman's "The Buck Stops Here," still applies to all presidents.

Did Bush and his admin. now it was false. That is an open question and you nor I will live long enough to know the answer to that question.

The same is true with other questions such as:

Did Bush intend to invade Iraq as soon as he was elected?
Did he really believe he could nation build in the Mid-East?
Did he purposely cover information up that weakened his argument for invading?
Was Powell lied to before he gave his speech at the UN?

You and I will never know for sure.

I really do not believe he had any knowledge of the history of the region. It was obvious to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of the Mid-East that invading Iraq would end up a disaster.

 

False information ? Another lie. Bush did not write the intelligence we used as a cause to invade. It was written before he took office.

You sure ask a lot of questions for a guy who's sure where the blame goes.

 

But he used the information. Of course he did not write the information. He didn't write the information during his time in office either. Others provided him with information and he used it. Did he use it honestly? That also is an open question and you and I will never know for sure.

Regardless he made the final decision, it is his responsibility.