Why do the lib-anti-war left conveniently overlook the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by their hero Clinton ??

Question

..that stated it shall be a policy of the U.S.A. to support and if necessary enforce regime change in Iraq ??

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Aah yes, more doublespeak and hypocracy from the left wing extremist nutjobs

Aviator, et al, you all seem to care so miuch about the loss of human life, yet completely ignore the fact that if we leave Iraq tomorrow, there will be a thousand times the killing and bloodshed by the factions of terror groups flooding in from Syria and Iran. This is a globally strategic battle.
As for itspinko, you are a putrid little sycophant, with the same tired used-up drivel for the last 6 years. Speaking of gutless little cowards, you wouldn't have the nuts to say that to my face because I'd kick your fecking teeth down your throat. Your left-over 60's hippy stench is stills tinking up this country, so why don't you either move to Palestine with your beloved brethren or just do us one better and keel over. You have no debate of substance just moreon dot org speaking points. - As if you have a clue where I am writing from, or whether or not I have served, you imbecilic and pathetic little twerp of an excuse for an existence. Grow the hell up already, patchoulli-breathe.

Answer 1

As most of us realize, the liberal press keeps a tight lid on stories like this one. You won't ever hear of this on any of the major networks, and you won't read about it in most big city newspapers. Most people watch CNN and think they've seen the news. WRONG. They've only seen what CNN wants you to think the news is. The major networks no longer report the news -- they run everything through their liberal filters and only report on what seeps out: the liberal line.

Perhaps the funniest part is, they deny having a liberal bias, as do their lib-tard viewers.

Answer 2

If you remember, there was another issue going on in Washington at the same time. President Clinton was in the middle of an impeachment process. So all attention was on that. I believe he signed it(Oct,98), to appease the "borderline" Republicans on his impeachment vote. But I don't believed there was any funding allocated or it. It was just a ploy to put Saddam on the mat. And as usual, these dictators don't scare, because we won't just go in and "do it". We fight a "politically correct war" all the time. The only "cookies" Clinton had were hanging out under his desk.

Answer 3

It was just like the whole "lie" denying his sexual relations with Lewinsky that everyone blew out of proportion; just an obvious cover up. The media, unfortunately, sways the idiotic public's opinions, and is obviously highly liberal. I am in favor of different aspects of both parties, as I strive to fairly judge politics, but our society is so easily led by claims against the Republicans that they refuse to think for themselves. I am glad to hear that someone actually cares to analyze these situations instead of leaning toward what is cool.

Answer 4

Dear leftsuck,
I can tell by the cowering quiver in your voice that you are some Thousands of miles from the Action.
Look what you and your GungHoe President have done to the Middle East YOU Jerk, wake up and smell the Coffee.
YOU are getting your *** kicked boyo, you have turned the once Great Nation of America in to the most reviled since the NAZI Germany.
But you would not know that would you being so far away. Obviously you could make a difference, so sign up tomorrow you Fool and lay down your life for your President, NOT your Country your President.
You hated Clinton because he had consensual sex, you love Bush because he has Killed/Murdered Hundreds of thousands of innocents, You Sick Sick Man.

Answer 5

First, support and enforce a regime change does not mean start a war. But lets assume it does.

In case you weren't aware, Saddam is dead. I may be mistaken, but he was the old regime. So under that act, the job is done. Yeah! But why are we still there?

Before you try to make a clever point, you should probably think it through a little. Your points supports the idea that we should have left right after Saddam was captured.

Answer 6

Perhaps because they know the difference between rhetoric, even rhetoric in support of someone else's war, and lying our way into a first-strike war on a tarbaby.

Answer 7

Saddam could have been captured via police work, intelligence efforts, etc. We did not need a full on war where all our young men and women are being killed and crippled (you won't see that in the news...it's illegal for us to see photos of our valiant soldiers coffins). It's been a total waste of lives. Democracy in Iraq? I don't believe we'll see it in our lifetime. You get one radical group out and there are 19 more waiting to take it's place. You'll see lots of regime changes in Iraq before you die.

Answer 8

Don't forget those same people charge that Bush and republicans hate guys even though it was Bill Clinton that signed the defense of marriage act into law. I call it "stategic ignorance".

Answer 9

Yes but no Clinton could do no wrong and Bush is the anti-christ and also a satan worshipper at Bohemian grove and also planned 911. Face it, politicians are the problem not republicans

Answer 10

Dude, like your party is a shining example of ethics and morality.

They're all like that - democrat and republican alike - so why do you think that your party is so much better? When the two parties are actually exactly the same.

I just vote democrat because that's the only way I can maybe take a step towards rescuing our heroic soldiers from the death-wish of our government. I don't think the democrats are heroes or anything like that. I'm realistic.

Are you?

FP