Didnt take him long...

[BrentAllen]

Yeah, Hal, I knew it wouldn't take long for one of you to bring up the WMD argument. I guess I will have to repeat for the MILLIONTH time that everyone thought they had them. That includes both Clintons (while Bill was on office), Kerry, and any other democrat who could get in front of a camera. Don't forget that also included the British and other foreign intelligence agencies. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your story, right?

 

Bush just got tired of the UN and democrats being all bark and no bite. How many UN resolutions had Saddam violated? How many times had Clinton wagged his finger at him, but done nothing? Bush said if we are going to talk the talk, let's walk the walk. I guess you would rather have Saddam back in power, right?

 

Where is Osama Bin Laden? Good question. I can tell you where he hasn't been. He hasn't been launching any attacks against the US.

 

I guess we will have to see what Obama is going to do about Bin Laden. Back in the campaign, he said the number one national security issue was to kill him and crush Al-Qaede. Now he has changed that to protecting America from further attack. But Hal, you won't hold that change in policy against him like you do Bush, will you?

 

Oct. 7, 2008: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."

 

Jan. 14, 2009: "My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

 

Mean what you say, say what you mean.

[scoutldr]

"Other than to say, "Mine is more powerful than yours", or something to that effect, what is the reason for having them?"

 

I guess one could say the same thing about those hundreds of Boy Scout patches in my closet. I don't really NEED them, so maybe the Government should pass a law prohibiting me from owning them.

 

[vol_scouter]

From what I have read, the WMD were in Iraq but were not found by the troops though they found evidence of their existence. I believe that the Bush administration felt like it was better to say that they didn't exist rather than say that they didn't know where the WMD were now. Bush was wrong about not putting the war in the budget, the patriot act, no bid contracts, and other issues. He was not one of the best presidents.

 

That said, Obama is now lying in almost every speech. He said that he didn't like the patriot act but has done nothing about it. He keeps making class warfare. Just now the cable news is reporting that the released budget plan will increase taxes on those families making >$209,000.00 per year when Obama said on Tuesday night that no family making less than $250,000.00 would not pay a single cent more in taxes. He is lying about his stance on the Second Amendment. He is the same kind of politician that we have had. The fact that Bush didn't do the right things is not an excuse for Obama. His change is for socialism - change that I do not want. Rush is right, I hope that he fails in turning the United States into a socialist state.

[Hal_Crawford]

No, everyone didn't believe he had WMD. In my area there were a lot of people who were really skeptical. Who lives in my area? Foreign service officers, Pentagon officers and people who work "for the government". There was a lot of head shaking at neighborhood parties in the winter and spring of '03. Bush's administration cherry picked intelligence to justify the war. Hussein was not a nice man. No sh*t! But he was contained. He was no more dangerous than Kim Jung Il or the folks in Iran. People who are probably more of a threat now because we have been stretched thin by waging a two front war. The war was unnecessary. That's the facts.

 

But if you choose to accept that WMD was just an unfortunate error, can you excuse the way he handled the war once it started. Haliburten's no bid contracts? The fact that Bush never included the war in the budget and cut taxes while waging his un-budgeted war? Certainly not the behavior that one associates with the word conservative.

 

Gimme a break!

Hal

[Horizon]

As this thread devolves into partisan bickering, I thought I would toss something in:

 

http://www.civilpolitics.org/

 

John Haidt is a professor who has done some very interesting research into happiness and into moral discourse. He has also done some great work on the difference between liberals and conservatives.

 

The web site above is an attempt by him to educate both sides, and to try to encourage more civilized discourse. I think that as Scouters we could all learn from it.

[BrentAllen]

Hal,

How did Bush, as governor of Texas, cherry pick the intelligence President Bill Clinton was seeing?

 

"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." 12/16/98 President Bill Clinton

[vol_scouter]

Horizon,

 

Interesting research! Provides good insights into the differences between liberals and conservatives. The most interesting point to me was when Professor Haidt pointed out that societies tend to move from conservative to liberal and then fail. Liberals need to embrace the three morals that they lack whereas conservatives display more balance. Civility does not mean agreeing but rather disagreeing in a polite manner which seems to be usually the case. For many, Obama is a hard turn to the left and the fear is the society will fail as mentioned by Professor Haidt. That said, I do not wish to live in a society without a large number of engaged liberals. It takes both for a good society.

[Hal_Crawford]

Apparently Clinton did not have enough confidence in what he was seeing or saying to stage an invasion of Iraq... or perhaps he believed it but had enough sense to deal with it through other means. Once upon a time Saddam had WMD, that is well known as he used poison gas on the Kurds. The Israeli air force blew is nuclear program to kingdom come years ago. But it was not clear that he had them in the 90's or since. Even if he did, that was not enough justification to invade. If it were we would have invaded Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, India, Israel, Russia, Ukraine...

 

And because Bush and Rumsfeld limited the number of troops sent to Iraq (generals ordered to revise estimates to fit the SecDef's numbers) they were unable to control the conventional weapons stockpiled there. As a result there is no shortage of materials for making IEDs. Anyone who has read anything about the Middle East could have told you that this was not going to turn out well. Winning the war was a given, winning the occupation, much less winning the peace is another thing entirely.

 

And no, vol-scouter they did not find evidence of WMD. It was reported briefly and then refuted.

 

Hal

 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Hal,

 

Some federal officials that I have talked to would say that they found barrels of recently emptied enriched uranium. Our sources would seem to disagree.

 

I do not argue with many of your points. Bush never explained why we needed to go to war with Iraq when we did. The democrats voted to go to war as well and so believed the same reasons. From my standpoint, the public never had any information that indicated that war was needed at that time. Even if Iraq had the WMD, why did we need to go to war then? So I agree.

 

Returning to the thread, Obama has shown himself to be a lair just like Bush though he is either worse at lying or arrogant about it. The sins of prior administrations do not excuse his lying and pushing the country into socialism.

[Beavah]

Honestly, folks, the poor guy has been saddled with the worst train wreck since FDR. We're way off da map in uncharted waters, and there be plenty of monsters. As an American, he's got my support and my prayers, because the Good Lord knows he needs 'em.

 

I feel for the President. He's in an impossible situation. There's probably no rescuin' the economic crash, but it sure doesn't help to have tom-fool Democrats on one side and witless Republicans on the other. The Republicans owe the country an intelligent platform and principled alternatives. Plenty of bright conservatives out there. But rather than rollin' up their sleeves and makin' suggestions while agreein' to do their share of the labor, they're like a bunch of three year olds. Or rather like a bunch of dimwitted bankers who haven't yet admitted the damage they've done and keep wishing it was still 2004. Back then, they could rally da base with worries about assault rifles. Sorry fellas, these days folks are sellin' the rifles to try to keep ownership of the house.

 

Stimulus package was a mess, it's true. No earmarks (which is a particular kind of legislative attachment, eh?) but plenty of foolishness. Not a bill to be proud of. No wonder he signed it way out in Denver. Obama should have vetoed it and told 'em to start over, but I expect the worries over the consequences of that choice were too great.

 

I have to laugh at the "socialist" fearmongerin', though. Given the choice between my tax dollars gettin' flushed down the drain and my tax dollars buyin' a bank, I'll take the latter. If my grandchildren's money is bein' spent, we better end up owning something for it. That's a darn sight better than spendin' 700 billion to keep zombie banks alive and zombie automakers standin' just long enough to get out of Dodge. But yeh gotta admire the sheer brazenness of executives like that.

 

Only bright spot is the economic collapse and oil glut is stranglin' the likes of Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Maybe the poor guy can get half a year of relative foreign policy quiet. Won't be longer than that, sad to say. The worldwide economic disaster we've caused will be stirrin' up plenty of unrest by then, I reckon.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten]

"I hope he succeeds" GB, Feb 26th, 2009

[evmori]

I don't like being lied to either Brent. In fact, I have sent Scouts home from camping trips for lying! But ya got to consider that junk was said to get elected! How many candidates have said they would do something only to not do it? That's why I don't listen to those stumping speeches! They are full of hollow promises! Heck, I've blown soap bubble with more substance!

 

Off to get those hollow point metal busters for my Uzi~(This message has been edited by evmori)

[scoutldr]

"the poor guy has been saddled with the worst train wreck since FDR"

 

Poor BHO. Led kicking and screaming into the White House against his will. Gimme a break. The mess we're in is due to ALL the politicians, on both sides of the aisle. They were all asleep at the wheel while Big Business ran amuck, except maybe for Ron Paul, whom everyone dismissed as a whack job. Seems everything he's said has turned out to be true.

 

There's another gun show this weekend in my town. I'll be there stocking up as well, while I still can.

[BrentAllen]

Ed,

No, he made the comment about no earmarks in the recovery bill on Tuesday, as in this past Tuesday, as in a couple of days ago. He said he was proud we passed the recovery bill without any earmarks. Give me a break. If you or Beavah want to argue that earmarks are different from pork, knock yourselves out. He is playing with words just like Clinton did, and I expect more from the person holding the highest office in the country. Change we can believe it, right? I'm doing my best to give the guy a chance, and he is blowing it at every turn.

 

Say what you mean, mean what you say. Proud of no earmarks. How about coming up with a bill that you can say you are proud there wasn't any pork in??

[GernBlansten]

The president has my full support. I want our nation to succeed.