English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since Bill Clinton could do no wrong and Bush can do no right, can you think of anything good that he has accomplished in Iraq or are just regurgitating the CNN reports about everything that he screwed up on?

2007-02-23 06:24:25 · 13 answers · asked by bigbro3006 3 in Politics & Government Government

13 answers

1. He has made a great deal of money for Haliburton
2. In Afgahastan they have finished the oil pipeline that the Taliban would not allow Bush's former company the Carlise Group to build
3. Because 3000 plus US soldiers have died. I can look forward to less competition in the job market and shorter lines at fast food places and the movies
4 Because the vast majority of those killed were men there are less men over here which gives me a better shot at getting some young pussy
5. He has showed himself to be completly imcompetent and the republicans will lose power as a result of that.

2007-02-23 07:16:12 · answer #1 · answered by snoopy22564 4 · 0 0

Well, I'm not a lib, I don't watch CNN and I think that if you're comparing the two Presidents it's best to point out no President has a perfect track record. But that's when we get to the details and I'm sorry, but the details point to Bush being one of the worst Presidents this country has ever produced. What good has he accomplished in Iraq beyond removing Hussein? There was no plan for the aftermath and no exit plan at all. Iraq is in chaos. To call this war a success you would have to be blind and deaf. Terrorist cells have greatly increased, as has animosity toward the United States from all over the world, including from our Allies. The rhetoric isn't working anymore and people are finally starting to realize that's just what it is - rhetoric. Sometimes I think if I have to hear "cut and run" one more time from the parrots on the far right I'm going to scream. Recognizing big changes have to take place in Iraq doesn't equal running from anything. In fact, more often I feel that cut and run fits the Bush bots more than anyone. They cut and run from the truth because just like their hero, they aren't capable of admitting they are wrong and that Bush has made a gigantic mess in Iraq that the next President is going to have to spend a good deal of time cleaning up. It's also disingenuous to suggest it's only liberals who are finding fault with Bush. Moderates, and even many Republicans, have had enough of this incompetence where Iraq is concerned. Do you think 70% of our population are liberals?

2007-02-23 14:42:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

What does it take to convince people that every liberal, conservative, democrat and republican does not have identical ideas on every issue? What the Pres. did that was good in Iraq was depose Saddam and destroy the weapons he had. Even though he did not have nuclear weapons, he would have developed them as soon as he could. If Saddam had not kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors, none of this would have been necessary. I do not watch CNN, so I do not know what you're talking about there. If I buy into your point of view, I'd assume you regurgitate everything you hear on Fox, but I do not accept the idea that you have no independent thoughts---although apparently that's what you think about the rest of America. Pres. Clinton made mistakes. Pres. Bush made mistakes. Every human being makes mistakes and no liberal has ever denied that. It is ideas like you express that is driving a wedge between the American people. Most of us are moderate and independent thinkers. You apparently reject the views of about 70% +/- of your fellow citizens.

2007-02-23 14:37:49 · answer #3 · answered by David M 7 · 1 0

We invaded Iraq not because Saddam was strong and an immediate threat but rather he was weak, problematic and control of Iraq and it’s resources would be strategically advantageous.
The tactical reasons are obvious. The Oil and Iraq’s strategic location from the stand point of military bases in order to control oil resources in the entire region.
The political motives are more complex.
Bush Junior and his cabinet for the most part objected to Bush senior leaving Sadam in power after the first Gulf war.
Sanctions started by Bush Sr. and carried on by two terms in office by Clinton had left Iraq in a terrible state in which corrupt government continued to prosper and carry out excesses against any that would oppose them, all the while at the expense of the people who perished to the tune of 1.5 million or more( mostly children) due primarily to lack of proper nutrition , lack of potable water, and lack of proper Medical attention all of which Saddam was able to blame on the West’s policy of Sanctions.
The motivation for them to carry out the invasion when they did and the way that they did was 9/11.
“Make hay while the sun shines”
Prior to 9/11 another major military invasion into Iraq was a hard sell to make to the American people.
In the words of PNAC (the Neo Conservative “ Project for the New American Century” ) an event on the order of Pearl Harbor was needed in order gain the public support required to do so .
So it was not so much because they thought Iraq was responsible for 9/11 but more because 9/11 enabled them to gain the public support they needed to carry out the invasion.
Again it was the OIL and Military bases they were/are ultimately after, WMD and Alkaeda connections were used as tools of propaganda and 9/11 served to justify and bolster the propaganda . IMHO The Administration felt confident it would be easy enough to find a couple of Al Kaeda members in the general population and enough WMD bits and pieces scattered about to back up their rhetoric once they demonstrated to the world that a thriving and secure Iraq was setting an outstanding model of Democracy in the Mid East.

Considering what actually developed out of all this the only honorable course of action left is that of reconciliation, reconstruction, and repairing the public security as best we can without overtly taking sides or trying to micro-manage a Civil War.
Unfortunately Iraqi’s have been left with little alternative but to fight it out till it burns out and some power emerges that restores public security.
This is not a solution but rather a situation that has arisen out of circumstance.
Plans of continuing on with overt demands for Private US oil exploitation, political manipulation and usury as a Military base of operations to expand the war on into Iran and Syria have been dashed by shear ineptitude, dishonesty and deceit carried out by the Administration.
Once some reasonable measure of public security is established the most we can ethically ask of the people of Iraq at this juncture is a reasonable guarantee that they will not engage in all the terrible untrue things we accused them of engaging in as a premise to blow their infrastructure and public security to smithereens in the first place.

2007-02-23 15:05:21 · answer #4 · answered by Daniel O 3 · 2 0

Clinton voted for insane conservative economic trade agreements and shrunk government more then any president since Reagan and cheats on his wife I would say he was a good conservative president. I think the Iraq occupation exposed the extreme right.

2007-02-23 14:30:11 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

He secured the Ministry of Oil when he invaded.

2007-02-23 14:41:17 · answer #6 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1 0

I'm listening. Haven't heard anything new or worth listening to.

2007-02-23 14:52:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Nothing good. Absolute destruction of a culture.

2007-02-23 14:33:25 · answer #8 · answered by Beau D. Satva 5 · 0 2

Bush like yourself are just slaves to greedy corporations. There is always a sucker like you in the world who will believe any sort of propaganda.

2007-02-23 14:28:21 · answer #9 · answered by ? 1 · 4 3

They don't listen, they believe everything on CNN, it's their mainstream news source!

2007-02-23 14:28:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers