Where are all the liberals?

[Mike AI]

I have loved the responses of Democrats....

Only Liberals could say that ousting 2 dictorial regimes in the middle east who supported terrorism and were our enemies, and now a 3rd coming clean - is considered a failure.

This has been a good week for US Foreign policy, and exerting muscle and strong determination.

It was not the UN, France, Germany, or any other weak wristed appeasers who brought this change about.

I am surprised that PD, and others have not posted that Bush cut a deal with Quadaffi to get US oil firms and Halliburton more contracts!! :lol:

[PornoDoggy]

Ghadafi "coming clean" probably does have something to do with the war in Iraq. However, both sides have been doing a diplomatic tapdance toward each other for a couple of years. So, claiming this as exclusively a "Bush" victory is like crediting Bush I for the fall of the Berlin Wall, while ignoring everything done between Truman and Reagan, and I know you wouldn't do that. (Ignore everyone from Truman to Carter, maybe, but never Reagan).

BTW, you should know by now that I don't use the "Bush is only doing this for oil and Haliburton" arguement. All that money for an education and no reading comprehension skills at all - your really ought to get your money back.

That kind of mushbrained thinking is for stupid people. The kind of people who jump on every piece of incidental evidence to support whatever notion they have decided is true.

[DrGuile]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Dec 22 2003, 12:06 PM
I have loved the responses of Democrats....

Only Liberals could say that ousting 2 dictorial regimes in the middle east who supported terrorism and were our enemies, and now a 3rd coming clean - is considered a failure.

This has been a good week for US Foreign policy, and exerting muscle and strong determination.

It was not the UN, France, Germany, or any other weak wristed appeasers who brought this change about.

I am surprised that PD, and others have not posted that Bush cut a deal with Quadaffi to get US oil firms and Halliburton more contracts!! :lol:
Does that make you feel safer?

Do you think it reduced the chances of terrorists attacks against the USA?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 22 2003, 12:27 PM
Ghadafi "coming clean" probably does have something to do with the war in Iraq. However, both sides have been doing a diplomatic tapdance toward each other for a couple of years. So, claiming this as exclusively a "Bush" victory is like crediting Bush I for the fall of the Berlin Wall, while ignoring everything done between Truman and Reagan, and I know you wouldn't do that. (Ignore everyone from Truman to Carter, maybe, but never Reagan).

BTW, you should know by now that I don't use the "Bush is only doing this for oil and Haliburton" arguement. All that money for an education and no reading comprehension skills at all - your really ought to get your money back.

That kind of mushbrained thinking is for stupid people. The kind of people who jump on every piece of incidental evidence to support whatever notion they have decided is true.


Good to see the trend of liberals self destructing continues....

[PornoDoggy]

I missed that one completely, Mikey ... I'm not sure exactly how I "self destructed", but if it makes you feel better to think I've done so, go for it. BTW ... the "mushbrained thinking" paragraph wasn't very clear. It refers every bit as much to the idea that Bush only went to war over oil and enriching Haliburton as it does to the notion that something likely caused by a culmination of events - the war being just one of them - can be credited only to Bush.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'll notice that I started out by saying that Ghadafi's change in tone probably does have something to do with the war in Iraq. Years of sanctions undoubtedly were a factor as well.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Dec 22 2003, 12:54 PM

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Dec 22 2003, 12:50 PM
I missed that one completely, Mikey ... I'm not sure exactly how I "self destructed", but if it makes you feel better to think I've done so, go for it. BTW ... the "mushbrained thinking" paragraph wasn't very clear. It refers every bit as much to the idea that Bush only went to war over oil and enriching Haliburton as it does to the notion that an event likely due to a culmination of events - the war being just one of them - can be credited only to Bush.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'll notice that I started out by saying that Ghadafi's change in tone probably does have something to do with the war in Iraq. Years of sanctions undoubtedly were a factor as well.
PD I did notice you gave Bush a little credit. No doubt Kadaffi has been coming around for sometime, however, I am sure he did not want to end up like Saddam so he is making the best deal he can.

We still have a long way to go in this war, but we have been making very solid steps forward!

[JR]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Dec 22 2003, 09:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Dec 22 2003, 09:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Dec 22 2003, 12:50 PM
I missed that one completely, Mikey ... I'm not sure exactly how I "self destructed", but if it makes you feel better to think I've done so, go for it. BTW ... the "mushbrained thinking" paragraph wasn't very clear. It refers every bit as much to the idea that Bush only went to war over oil and enriching Haliburton as it does to the notion that an event likely due to a culmination of events - the war being just one of them - can be credited only to Bush.

If you bothered to read what I wrote, you'll notice that I started out by saying that Ghadafi's change in tone probably does have something to do with the war in Iraq. Years of sanctions undoubtedly were a factor as well.
PD I did notice you gave Bush a little credit. No doubt Kadaffi has been coming around for sometime, however, I am sure he did not want to end up like Saddam so he is making the best deal he can.

We still have a long way to go in this war, but we have been making very solid steps forward![/b][/quote]
they have been going back and forth for years on ending sactions and doing the Lockerbee settlement and getting the UN back in Libya. I would not say it was Bush's baby... but i would certainly think that Bush's foreign policy had a lot to do with it.

I would not want to be the guy who just admitted blowing up innocent people while watching the Afghanistan and Iraq war play out. I am sure Khadaffi was feeling quite a bit of heat in addition to the fact that Libya is an economic failure and the regime is weak due to sanctions.

I think its perfectly normal for Democrats to try to make Bush's foreign policy look like a failure. Thats the name of the game. Thats politics. If it was Clintons foreign policy... Conservatives would all be pointing out all the negatives of every move he made as well. I think that there is a small irony right now in that people are a little more sensitive about this issue, terrorism and security and although Democrats have no choice but to attack Conservative policy, people like Dean are being forced into a corner where they are alienating themselves from voters.

A funny thing about leadership is that people want to feel good about themselves and good about the future. When a politician is forced into the position where all he can do is talk about negatives... he has lost.

[Rolo]

By doing this, then Libya has also made sure that Israel will get more attention about their weapons programs in 2004... much more easy for them to point fingers at Israel, when they are "clean".