Last edited by Kmarion (2006-09-26 10:22:09)
Just one small detail: BOTH Democrats & Republicans were WRONG because there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if the Clinton administration was stupid enough to lie to the American people that there were WMDs, the Bush administration is 10 times stupid to lie and invade. Try to get over the petty differences between the two pathetic parties (who are actually of one and the same political stance) and look at the goddamn big picture.Kmarion wrote:
It was nice to watch this after having the Democrats continualy throw in the Republicans face that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?sergeriver wrote:
As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite.
First off Clinton had 8 years. Most of them did not say "possible threat", most of them said they believed he was developing them or had them and it was indeed a threat to us. The only difference I see is that while they both seemed to believe that he had them only Bush did something about it. Why do they say openly that they believe he is a threat and yet refuse to act on it. This isn't establishing who is right or wrong because they seem to both be saying he was a threat.While these people talked about a possbile threat about Iraq havin WMD's, they never invaded that country. While GWB had 5 years more of information about this issue, he still invaded Iraq.
We believe he's developing WMD's = supposition.Kmarion wrote:
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?sergeriver wrote:
As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite.First off Clinton had 8 years. Most of them did not say "possible threat", most of them said they believed he was developing them or had them and it was indeed a threat to us. The only difference I see is that while they both seemed to believe that he had them only Bush did something about it. Why do they say openly that they believe he is a threat and yet refuse to act on it. This isn't establishing who is right or wrong because they seem to both be saying he was a threat.While these people talked about a possbile threat about Iraq havin WMD's, they never invaded that country. While GWB had 5 years more of information about this issue, he still invaded Iraq.
Did they act on that bad info?Kmarion wrote:
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?sergeriver wrote:
As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite.
Agreed but the point is both parties had presumptions. It's not even who is right or wrong but rather the fact they can bash Bush and pretend he was the only one with the notion the Saddam had WMD's is crazy. Did either one truly know what was going on most likely no. But they both displayed the same idea. It's easy criticize after the fact. It's called Monday morning quarterback.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption.
Definitely.sergeriver wrote:
And to be honest all politicians are more or less hypocrites.
He had 5 years More information? Where? Where did he get 5 years more than anyone else? Did he have 5 more years than the British? Did he have 5 more years worth than the UN? DID he have 5 more years worth of MORE information than the rest of the world that also thought Saddam had them? If so, where did he get it from? The Magic Intel fairy? So He had 5 more years worth than Everyone else that was around during the previouse Admin? Ok Next.sergeriver wrote:
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise. As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite. While these people talked about a possbile threat about Iraq havin WMD's, they never invaded that country. While GWB had 5 years more of information about this issue, he still invaded Iraq. Who is the hypocrite?
Did they act on what they believed?PRiMACORD wrote:
Did they act on that bad info?Kmarion wrote:
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?sergeriver wrote:
As long as the people in the video at that time had bad information, then you can't call them hypocrite.
No.
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.Kmarion wrote:
Agreed but the point is both parties had presumptions. It's not even who is right or wrong but rather the fact they can bash Bush and pretend he was the only one with the notion the Saddam had WMD's is crazy. Did either one truly know what was going on most likely no. But they both displayed the same idea. It's easy criticize after the fact. It's called Monday morning quarterback.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption.Definitely.sergeriver wrote:
And to be honest all politicians are more or less hypocrites.
You can't act on what you believe, you can act on what you are sure.Kmarion wrote:
Did they act on what they believed?PRiMACORD wrote:
Did they act on that bad info?Kmarion wrote:
Ok it's ok for Clinton to have bad info but not Bush?
No.
No.
Correct.sergeriver wrote:
I totally agree, it's hypocrite to criticize GWB for having the same presumption than Clinton, but it's not hypocrite to criticize him for invading Iraq over those presumptions.
I disagree - you can invade a country over a presumption. It's been proven over and over again throughout history.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption. You must stick to the facts, and the facts tell that there were no WMD's in Iraq. If Saddam got rid of them before the invasion, that's another story. But, you still can not invade a country without certain proves.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that GWB did invade Iraq, while Clinton not. And to be honest all politicians are more or less hypocrites.
Last edited by Pug (2006-09-26 10:59:20)
If we all agree there's no debate.Pug wrote:
I disagree - you can invade a country over a presumption. It's been proven over and over again throughout history.sergeriver wrote:
I'm saying, despite who was at the office, you can't invade a country over a presumption. You must stick to the facts, and the facts tell that there were no WMD's in Iraq. If Saddam got rid of them before the invasion, that's another story. But, you still can not invade a country without certain proves.
The difference between Clinton and Bush is that GWB did invade Iraq, while Clinton not. And to be honest all politicians are more or less hypocrites.
Second, there were other reasons for invading Iraq besides the WMD spectre. Clearly you do not agree with the invasion. I, for one, am not going to argue with you - you aren't going to change your mind.
Third, the results/goal achievements are mixed based on the answer to #2, so again a fruitless debate spirals on.