What will President Bush announce tonight?

[CDaws]

US ecconomics and the impending war are TWO different subjects can't you even see that and seperate the two?

Originally posted by Lexington_Steele
What was so bad about Clinton, was it the fact that he balanced the budget so much that there was a budget surpluss?

Was it the fact that he was making real headway on preserving social security.

Was it the fact that he was making headway in creating peace between Israel and the PLO?

You failed to mention a single thing about preventing the impending war with Iraq in your previous post. That is what I responded to.

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Ranger
Where did you get out of what I said that the impending war with Iraq is Clintons fault? Seems to me that I didn't even say anything about the impending war in the quote that you posted of me. So WTF is you question or point Lex? To answer your question anyway for starters in 19whatever the inspectors where kicked out of Iraq under Clintons presidency, he then went on to not even put forth the effort to get them back in. There for he sat on his ass for eight years and let things build up and didn't do a damn thing to prevent the events that lead us to today.

Get your points straight and try to keep the ecconomic part out of and away form the military asspects. My point is that Clinton didn't do a damn thing while he sat on his ass for the past eight years to not let the build up happen in Iraq.

[Navaron]

"Is Clinton so bad for trying to work things out with Iraq without a war. Clinton was firmly against Iraq having WMDs. If you recall Clinton ordered airstrikes against Iraq following Iraqs failure to comply with the weapons inspector."

a) the aspirin factory he blew up learned it's lesson.
b) when he was trying to weasle out of impeachment, he was all pro war with Iraq - for even less that is against Iraq now - and all of his buddies on the left were gung ho. So what's their deal? Were they towing the party line then? Or were they really for the war? Either way, they were (or are) putting party before country.


"What was so bad about Clinton, was it the fact that he balanced the budget so much that there was a budget surpluss?"

a) trickle down economics is what caused the boom of the 90's. Clinton's anti business and anti worker taxes and policies caused the economic downturn we are in now. He not only raised taxes on every single tax bracket, he started taxing people on SS, and took away MANY veteran's benifits. What was the need in the middle of a booming economy? Keeping the same tax levels would have created a much larger tax income. Consequently, his out of control taxing plans are what stifled the growth of the tech boom.

b) A government surpluss is what happens when the citizens are OVER taxed. They took too much of our money. Did you ever see them give it back? I sure didn't.

I also can see both of your points on Iraq and Clinton. I think what Ranger was getting at was that, after 8 years, he did very little to react to the blatant disregard of UN regulations. The point is, Clinton should have fought this fight 5-7 years ago.

[OneManArmy]

10 minutes 'til he announces our new Blue money.... (oh and maybe some little thing about iraq).....

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Ranger
US ecconomics and the impending war are TWO different subjects can't you even see that and seperate the two?

You failed to mention a single thing about preventing the impending war with Iraq in your previous post. That is what I responded to.

Get your points straight and try to keep the ecconomic part out of and away form the military asspects. My point is that Clinton didn't do a damn thing while he sat on his ass for the past eight years to not let the build up happen in Iraq.

How would you suggest that Clinton have prevented a war? What should he have don to Iraq to have prevented a war?Hindsight being 20/20, you should be able to see a specific action Clinton should have taken. What is that action. What didn't clinton do that you think would have prevented a war with Iraq?

Unless you can pinpoint something he could have done to prevent a war, you can't blame him for the war.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
a) the aspirin factory he blew up learned it's lesson.
b) when he was trying to weasle out of impeachment, he was all pro war with Iraq - for even less that is against Iraq now - and all of his buddies on the left were gung ho. So what's their deal? Were they towing the party line then? Or were they really for the war? Either way, they were (or are) putting party before country.

You do realize that the right wanted war aswell. Clinton wanted to see a diplomatic solution and if military action was necessary WMDs should be the primary target. The right thought that Saddam the primary objective for military strikes should be the removal of Saddam.

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron

a) trickle down economics is what caused the boom of the 90's. Clinton's anti business and anti worker taxes and policies caused the economic downturn we are in now. He not only raised taxes on every single tax bracket, he started taxing people on SS, and took away MANY veteran's benifits. What was the need in the middle of a booming economy? Keeping the same tax levels would have created a much larger tax income. Consequently, his out of control taxing plans are what stifled the growth of the tech boom.

b) A government surpluss is what happens when the citizens are OVER taxed. They took too much of our money. Did you ever see them give it back? I sure didn't.

I also can see both of your points on Iraq and Clinton. I think what Ranger was getting at was that, after 8 years, he did very little to react to the blatant disregard of UN regulations. The point is, Clinton should have fought this fight 5-7 years ago.

You do realize that we have a national debt that we should be taking care of. I see a budget supluss as the ability to pay off this debt and have the US do better in the long run.

Do you feel that America should spend the rest of it's existance in defecit spending and never address the national debt? How do you address these issues without a budget surplus.

We have huge problems like Social security going bankrupt. This is a major concern of the American people. The surpluss could have been used to bail out social security. Does it make you real happy to know that you pay social security and will probably not recieve the benefits of social security?

Like communism, trickle down economics works in theory. However there is alot more to the economy than giving tax breaks to the rich. Our government needs money run. Our military is not cheap. Where are you going to pay for government from? If you are cutting taxes on bussiness owners, who is paying for all that?

[CDaws]

Did Clinton get the inspectors back into Iraq? No.
Bush got the Inspectors back.
Did Clinton persue the matter as Bush has done, and even try to make an effort to prevent the buildup of weapons? No.
Bush went to the UN for the 1440 resalution for complete and utter dissarment.

What I'm saying is that Clinton didn't put forth the effort or any effort to stop the build up of arms whether it have been diplomatic or military based. I'm not saying Clinton is soley responsible for the war so stop thinking that. He just didn't put forth the effort if any at all to prevent it like he should have.

[Lexington_Steele]

Yes your right, Clinton did not get us into a war with Iraq, and Bush will. How is Iraq different now than it was 4 years ago?

How far have the weapons inspectors gotten? What have they found? What good was getting them in there anyways if they are not able propperly do their job? The Bush administration is not doing any better than Clinton's with regards to having the weapons inspectors get their jobs done.

Are we worse off for waiting an extra 8-10 years for going to war with Iraq?

The thing is that the situation in Iraq is not that dissimilar to what it was 4 years ago.

Many countries feel like the containment of Iraq is working. Why are they wrong?

I am not faulting Bush for going to war with Saddam. However we are not really worse off for waiting.

Was it so terrible to attempt to find a diplomatic solution instead of going to war? Don't you agree that a diplomatic solution would be preferable to a military solution? Aren't we obligated to find a diplomatic solution instead of strongarming with our military?

You are faulting a man for not allowing a situation to escalate while at the same time trying to find a diplomatic solution to disarm the problem.