Are the Anti-War democrats out of line with all their asinine anti-war rhetoric.?

Question

As I look around and see the anti-war crowd go stupid wild with propaganda hate messages in reference to our commander in chief, if we look at simple facts prior to our current President, the problem in Iraq and the rest of the world, there is nothing new, these problems have been around a lot longer than the current President, if you read our current history you can pin a lot of the blame on Bill Clinton for his inability to deal with world terrorist crisis, you go back even further to the Sr Bush, he should have gone to Iraq back during the golf war.

Going back to the original question are the Anti-War Democrats out of line with all the false statements being made against President Bush, true some even may border on a hint of truth, but most are quarter statements with a lot of propaganda added.

Answer 1

Democrats are confused like Kerry was Democrats have no agenda and they just oppose Bush they vote for the War in Iraq then slam him now and call for US withdraw knowing Iraq will became a mess if the USA leaves now.If he does accuse him of deserting Iraq

Was Clinton is responsible what did he do after the USS cole bombing ?what did he do after the embassy in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed
Bomb sudan Why ?
Hit a few Afghanistan tents the terrorists had fled the site and caused less 1000 worth of damage
The terrorists responded with 9/11
He should done what Bush attack afghanistan

Answer 2

Democrats aren't anti-war, they're anti falsifying facts to justify sending brave young people off to die in the wrong war.

There are many avenues available to those who'd like their news without propaganda. You could open yourself up to as many newspapers and blogs from both sides as you can read. Reading world opinion is also a good way to really understand the damage that's been done to America because of this war. Under Clinton, America was primarily respected around the world. Bush managed to take a country that was a super power and turn the world against it. That is something new and fully attributable to Bush.

This is not a Republican/Democrat problem, there are enough good people in both parties to run a country. Unfortunately, the President and his cronies had so little regard for truth, honor and justice that they allowed the facts to be subverted so they could play at war. Sadly, the kids who are over there trying to scrounge up body armour are the ones who are paying with their lives. It's no coincidence that almost all of the retired high ranking generals have come out against Bush and Rumsfeld. I'd rather believe them than someone who chose not to even serve out his National Guard service.

Answer 3

And you wish to put what forth as supporting evidence for your accusations? In fact, it is the Administration and it's "Yessa, Massa" lackeys who spew forth false statements and slander whenever it suits their purposes. All you need to do is look back to the 2004 election and the blatantly false Swift Boat lies told about John Kerry. Clinton actually did attempt to rid the world of such nuisances as bin Laden, however the Congress, in their infinite wisdom, would not allow him to press the issue. And he was also being headed off by the top Pentagon brass, who didn't think they could take orders from someone who didn't serve in the military. Gee, they sure changed their tune with George W., didn't they? Oh yeah, he served all right. I didn't see him in Vietnam (and yes, I was there!). He opted for the "silver spoon" approach, and left pilot training when it got too tough on him. Yep, they'd rather follow a quiter (and an idiot, as well) than someone who was a Rhodes scholar. They'd rather follow the person who drove every single business he was ever involved in into the ground. When he was recently asked what his most memorable moment as President has been, do you know what his response was? Was it capturing Sadaam Hussein? "Liberating" Iraq? Nope. It was, believe it or not, catching a 7-pound perch in his lake in Crawford. The most noteworthy and memorable event as President. Yep, that's a guy I can really get behind!

Answer 4

You seem to be mixing problems in Iraq and the terrorism. Most probably you don't have enough knowledge about the world politics. You are just writing the pro-war rhetoric whic the administration has circulated.

Here is some of the things I note:
1. Al Quaeda considered Saddam as an enemy since he ran a secular country (There is a tape about this with CNN recovered from Afganistan - never gave that publicity - why?)
2. Our forces are stretched too thin because we are in between a bad civil war - now Iraq has become a good place for terrorists. Now we no longer can fight the "war on terror" since we do not have enough forces to keep Iran in check.
3. With Iraq gone and a pro-Iranian government in power, Iran has huge clout in the middle-east. Due to #2 we cannot even silence Iran.
4. Clinton has foiled the millinieum terror plot and he was very good in persuing terrorists - the problem is the American people did not have a clear understanding of the evils of terrorism. With low pulic priority for anti-terrorism, congress also kept it as a low priority (Wasn't it a Republican congress?)
5. The whole terrorism funding was done by Regan / Bush Sr., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That funding created Afganistan as the hot bed for extreimism and killed approximately 50,000 people in Kashmir and almost 500,000 in Afganistan. They are the "axis of evil" not Iraq, Iran and South Korea.
6. The current administration does policies that gives political attention not the real things needed by the country. For example millions is spend in doing finger printing infrastructure for visas. But no money is spend in hiring Arabic translators - thousands of hours of possible terror chat is left untranslated due to resource constraints. Above that more monitoring and recording is haping without cort approval -- for what?? keep it in shelf since we don't have Arabic translators?

I see propaganda as the "axis of evil", "weapons of mass distructions" and "war on terror"

Answer 5

First of all: It's the "Gulf War"

Also, I agree with what other people are already saying. What you have put in your question is almost exactly what the administration is putting out on Fox and CNN.

If you have to label people simply because they disagree with what you're saying then I'm not entirely sure that you understand the meaning of 'free speech'. If the definition of 'free speech' is hat everyone has to have the same opinion of every other person then you no longer have what can be called 'freedom of speech'.

What you have stated also is full of 'pro-presidential elect' propoganda. There just happens to be this "loophole" in the law that would allow him to remain president indefiantely. Would you be comfortable with that?

Answer 6

No. i think they have a point..and i am neither republican or democrat.

Why do you label people who protest against the war stupid and full of hate?

See, that is the problem right there. Because someone else has an opinion you don't like...you label them.

Maybe you should be asking how many laws has the President broken....compared to Clintons reign...

Answer 7

Are the Bush supporters out of line with their sophistic pro-war rhetoric?

Answer 8

Perhaps you should phrase your question as "anti-war demonstrators". Hundreds of thousands of people have died defending your and my right as citizens of the United States to express our opinion on any topic we wish. It is called free speech. Would you want it any different?

Answer 9

Why do you love war? History doesn't look fondly upon those who start wars.