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

It is like the neo-cons so flatly deny that Bush lied to get us into the war in Iraq, and the anti-war libs do not look at the fact that it was the Intel collected during the Clinton years, that got us into this war. And how come, the neo-cons flatly denied that Iraq was a threat during the Clinton administration, yet they were ready to get on their knees and pray that we would get into war with Iraq when Bush wanted to go to war?

2007-02-24 09:54:12 · 9 answers · asked by ProLife Liberal 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

My point is this. If the neo-cons had voted in congress to let Clinton go to Iraq, Who could we blame now?

2007-02-24 11:30:51 · update #1

9 answers

I call it the "Lemming Syndrome". there really is no logical reasoning behind it.

2007-02-24 09:59:27 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0 1

Your question makes no sense. If you admit that the anti-war libs refuse to look at the fact the the intel says the weapons were there then why would the "Neo-cons" or anybody else not deny that Bush lied? Who the heck said that Iraq was not a threat during the Clinton Administration? Sadam was jerking the U.N. inspectors all over the place and his troops were shooting at our aircraft in the no fly zone every day. Where do you people get this stuff?

2007-02-25 02:26:16 · answer #2 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0 0

Because you are either lying or do not know the truth. We went to Iraq to enforce the 17 UN resolutions. Think I am incorrect, then watch Hillary Clinton make the case right here. Fast forward to about 6 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

We have stated that Iraq was a problem all the time. It became critical mass after 9-11. We could no longer afford to let Saddam get away with developing WMD's

2007-02-24 18:55:05 · answer #3 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0 0

Sadly, the contentions in your ("question"?) indicate an extreme loss of sight, if not total blindness. If Bush lied, then ALL of the left wing leaders also lied as well as many of the world leaders. Anything that happened negatively (regarding foreign policy) during the Clinton administration had NOTHING to do with the Republicans but ALL to do with the 0 negative bleeding heart left wing fanatics that call themselves democrats (politically correct?)

2007-02-24 18:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by just the facts 5 · 1 0

Most people haven't learned that there is a direct correlation between their ability to think indipendently and the existance of their freedom. And that is an issue for both liberals and conservatives.

Most people don't realize that the things that come out of their mouths about politics (and economics or religion, take your pick)did not originate in their minds...it only passed through there as a way stop after it was heard being spoken by whoever their partisan idol is.

For those that wish to engage their own minds and have the courage to face objective truths, reason and logic are the only tools capable of arriving at indipendent conclusions.

Strangly, once one has been able to endure through that process (for it can be very difficult at times), you rarely find them calling names and using hate speach.

I think that we are in the clutches of a political class (republicans and democrats) that revels in this reality as it makes it possible to maintain their power and control. As long as Americans look to Washington as our "leaders" we will see this pattern repeated over and over.

Who should our leaders be? Hah, that is for each of us to find out but I can give you a hint...it isn't a congressman or a president or a military commander...it's a lot closer to home.

2007-02-24 18:12:38 · answer #5 · answered by cappi 3 · 1 0

I think it is more RE-active than PRO-active. Rank and file Republicans do not like Bush anymore than rank and file Democrats liked Kerry. Most members of each group voted AGAINST the other's candidate.

So-called "neo-conservatives" (the only thing about them that is conservative is their name) cheerlead for Bush because they don't want to give an inch to someone like Hillary whom they strongly dislike, vice versa.

2007-02-24 19:30:54 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus Jones 4 · 0 0

Human nature.
It is more difficult to collect information on any subject from many different, hopefully objective reports & then make up your own mind then to accept a "pat" answer from "leaders" of any political bent.

The truth shall set you free.

Oh yeah - Bush & his administration & followers are not conservatives.

2007-02-24 18:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Bad M 4 · 1 0

Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister said; “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger”.

2007-02-24 18:03:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I feel that it is not blindly following their chosen political party - its more towards the leadership of their choice "blind siding their supporters"

2007-02-24 18:05:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers