It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons In Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find The Rose Law Firm billing records!
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick!
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
2007-02-12 12:10:50 · 14 answers · asked by plezurgui 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I remember that President Clinton was for Regime Change in Iraq. He signed the Iraq Liberation Act on 31 Oct 1998 -- and now Dems are complaining about it having happened but like idiots "blame" it on President Bush!
I have always admired the Rudyard Kipling poem "IF".
2007-02-12 12:18:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Come on back to earth. One or two differences I have noticed between those two administrations is how with one administration America felt good about America. The other administration, we have an almost four year old war which many Americans view as un-winnable. We have a growing general malaise hanging over us. The only place we have taken Iraq is into some type of hell.
2007-02-12 20:30:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
In fact the war in Iraq has lasted longer than our involvement in World War II, and as I recall it only required a matter of days to count the votes in Florida, but we are still bogged down in Iraq and unless Congress gets some backbone, we'll still be there when the next president is sworn in.
2007-02-12 20:23:42 · answer #3 · answered by Sailinlove 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If we've "taken Iraq" why is it that we needed to send more troops there, "stay the course", lost 3000 soldiers and counting, and can't leave because their Government is totally ineffective?
And NO it is NOT Clinton's fault. Note to Republicans: not every failure of the Bush administration is Clinton's fault.
2007-02-12 20:16:53 · answer #4 · answered by clueless_nerd 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
All true, but I'm not sure what point you're making. I've noticed it takes allot longer to build a sand castle than it does to knock it down. If Bush is trying for "History's fastest dispenser of global chaos" I might vote for him for once.
2007-02-12 20:23:14 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about???...Iraq hasn't been "taken" yet and we still haven't found evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq either. At least democrats are finishing some semblance of a job.
I don't now where you cut and pasted the demographics for that information but it sounds like "cosmopolitan" or "Red Book" to me.
2007-02-12 20:16:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 2⤋
Is Kosovo independent yet? What is it almost 10 years later. LOL!
2007-02-12 20:23:36 · answer #7 · answered by tabs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You forgot one more: It took less time for Bush senior to like Bill Clinton more than he likes his chimp son.
2007-02-12 20:14:39 · answer #8 · answered by childrenofthecorn 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Excellent point! So why are we still in Iraq?
2007-02-12 20:16:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
What I'm wondering is, just exactly where did we "take" Iraq? It's in a shambles.
2007-02-12 20:13:43 · answer #10 · answered by puter_patty 4 · 7⤊ 3⤋