Liberalscum Buster

December 19, 2007

SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR- PUT SOME LIPSTICK ON THAT PIG

Filed under: BARACK OBAMA, Bush, life, mideast, news, politics, war — gasdocpol @ 6:02 pm

Bill Clinton “I was against that war from the beginning … I did not have sexual relations with that fiasco”

Rudolf Giuliani ” After 9/11, I said to Bernie Kurek Thank God GW Bush is our President”

Mitt Romney “How dare Huckabee say GW Bush ‘s policy in Mideast is arrogant”

John Edwards “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Hillary Clinton It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

BARACK OBAMA IN OCTOBER 2002 “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

NOT BAD FOR A YOUNG WHIPPERSNAPPER OF 45 WITH ONLY 4 YEARS IN THE US SENATE AND 8 YEARS IN THE ILLINOIS SENATE AND 10 YEARS TEACHING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT A TOP LAW SHOOL AND THE TOP DRAFT PICK COMING OUT OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL IN 1991.

I WILL TAKE MY CHANCES WITH BARACK ANYDAY.

Advertisements

6 Comments »

  1. But why is Obama hiring so many former Clinton advisers and staff? If Hillary and Bill were so corrupt and warmongering, why is Obama actively looking to hire former Clinton advisers — who actually advised Bill Clinton to attack Iraq during his years in office. Fortunately, the Clintons didn’t attack Iraq — but the same group of advisers are now working for Obama. Coincidentally, he recently called for the U.S. to nuke and invade Pakistan. If this is not considered a dumb war, I don’t know what is.

    Why didn’t Obama vote against the Iran resolution — if he is against an unjust war with Iran? I rather have a candidate who takes a stance — whichever it may be than someone who like to play the “disappearing” act. That is what he has done in the State Senate and now the U.S. senate.

    If you don’t take my words for it, you can do your own research on the points I have raised. Unfortunately, you will find more info about how old Hillary Clinton looks or how cold and calculating she is than these substantive info about Obama. Talk about fairness and equality.

    Comment by neoauteur — December 19, 2007 @ 7:15 pm

  2. 1. Obama has been very clear about how he felt about the War.

    Oct 28, 2002 he sad “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” THIS QUALIFIES AS TAKING A STANCE EVEN WHEN THAT STANCE IS UNPOPULAR!

    Even if indeed the Clinton advisors in question were instrumental in making Clinton attack Iraq, the issue is far more complicated than youi suggest. The UN had imposed sanctions and the GOP wanted aggressive action against Iraq. In 1998 Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz went to Clinton and tried to get him to invade Iraq (google Clinton PNAC) and Clinton wisely refused. You are implying that Obama would slavishly follow advice which you claim was instrumental in getting Clinton to attack Iraq which would be contradictory of everything Obama has said. A LOT OF IFS THERE.

    Obama was not present for the vote. He was elsewhere. If he had voted for the resolution to label the revolutionary guard it would be incontradiction to what I understand to be his approach to foreign affairs. He has said that he would talk to Iran without pre-conditions. That does not sound to me like someone is going to make an Axis of Evil type statement against Iran.

    Comment by gasdocpol — December 19, 2007 @ 7:45 pm

  3. New book reveals captured documents that show Saddam did support al qaeda and the Taliban.

    ‘Both In One Trench: Saddam’s Secret Terror Documents’

    http://www.bothinonetrench.com/index2.html

    Comment by Ray Robison — December 20, 2007 @ 10:02 pm

  4. Keep on believing Bush/Cheney and the Neocons. You will go far.

    Comment by gasdocpol — December 20, 2007 @ 10:33 pm

  5. All politicians are pigs of war! They were put in office by the corporations and Diebold. War will only end when the corporations are nationalized and the lousy politicians are driven out and strung upside down to suffer like we suffer under their iron heels of oppression. Screw capitialism and bring on Marxism!

    Comment by Richard Neva Norwich, NY — March 16, 2008 @ 10:29 pm

  6. Marxism has been a well documented failure. Capitalism just needs to be kept honest by the government and truly competitive markets. When lobbyists for a given industry are put in charge of regulating those same industries we all suffer.

    Not ALL politicians are “pigs of war”. Obama and a few others clearly opposed the Iraq war.

    Under the guise of promoting the USA and Americans, the agenda of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) has done more to harm our nation than arguably anything else in our history. PNAC came off the shelf the day GW Bush became president.

    The members of the Project For a New American Century had their agenda prepared and published before they propped up an uninformed, inexperienced, failed businessman named George W. Bush as their poster candidate. He had great appeal among the good ole boys and the bible thumpers who were not very likely to vote for the scowling man behind the curtain, Dick Cheney. George W. Bush had not been sitting around for the previous 10 years thinking about foreign policy. Rather, he was being coached on foreign policy by handlers who had to teach him that Africa was a continent and not a country.

    The stated aims of PNAC can be followed from their war plans to their hopes of global military superiority. George W. Bush was not a factor when PNAC was writing its openly published policies. But once the 2000 election was secured, PNAC members became and remain the mainstay of the Bush administration, holding virtually every major position relating to foreign policy.

    Comment by gasdocpol — March 17, 2008 @ 12:41 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: