Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S history.

Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.



Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.



John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.



In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries,
crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia,
Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

EI

i liked your pot stirring. hard to dispute some of what you said. i'll leave it at that.

...ok.....this was already posted and I will paste the same reply:

"OK, one misc. rebutle (I'm too tired to push a rope):

The Axis powers were spreading through Europe invading everyone surrounding them (specifically Poland). Now, the first Gulf War Saddam was invading Kuwait, so, justifiably, we stepped in......who was he invading/threatening this time?


BTW, what makes you so sure we are not headed for a quagmire this time? We are far from pulling our troops out.

Also, there are MANY factors you fail to mention in siting death tolls. One of monumental effect is technology. Our ability to fight from a distance with laser-guided bombs, etc. has greatly reduced the death toll numbers, NOT BUSH'S chivalry and prowess.

You guys gripe about how the Librals spin everything, yet you are doing exactly that in this post."


If you search for the thread title "war" you'll see other comments.

Those look more like facts to me.

Oh yeah...well Lincoln started a war here in the US,so there! X :~)

EI, you can go back to Teddy Roosevelt. The U.S. has sent troops into foreign SOVEREIGN countries many more times than is widely known. Woody Wilson alone sent troops into Nicaraugua, Haiti(2-3 times), Panama, Cuba, and at least 10(some sources say 12) times into Mexico! Hell, we invaded Russia in 1917! The U.S. has a long tradition in this regard.

Sonny, you are a fine representative of the Left: "BTW, what makes you so sure we are not headed for a quagmire this time?"
Exactly, even if something is the right thing to do, we should NEVER do it IF it might not go PERFECTLY.
Is that really what you're saying? I can't imagine it is, but who knows.

Forgot to mention, this action in Iraq MUST have been the right thing to do. Remember back when Clinton was in office (shiver), he, Gore, and most of the liberals agreed a regime change in Iraq was imperative to a more stable Middle East? Remember when even they were convinced that action MUST be taken to help the Iraqi's and their neighbors?
No, you don't remember? Well, neither do they it seems. Thank goodness for public record...

Not an attack here, just a statement.

first, a quagmire initiated under false pretenses and lies is what I am referring to. The man lied so he could go into Iraq and a quagmire.

All this crap about liberating the Iraqi people...blah blah blah!!!!! Where were you guys when the genocide in Africa was going on years ago?? See, you use this arguement when it suits you!

"WHERE ARE THE WMDs?"

"uhhhhhh.....but......uhhhhhhh....GW has freed the poor innocent people of Iraq! YEA! That's it!"

"WHERE ARE THE WMDs?"

"well.....mmmm....well.......uhhhhhhh......he saved the Iraqi people of years of oppression! YEA! That's it!"

"OK, SCOOTER. WHY WERE YOU NOT EXPRESSING THIS HUMANITARIAN SENTIMENT IN PAST YEARS IN OTHER AREAS OF THE WORLD?"

"......."

"HELLO?"

"....'cause GW wasn't president yet!"

"EXACTLY!"

Now, don't blow smoke about Clinton and Iraq.....did he invade under a cloak of fabrications? NO!
He did not attack Iraq, so how in the world do you use this as an arguement???? I don't get it.

Thats the problem Sonny, You just don't get it

...no, I don't get a case of the dumbass often...

EI:

What more can I add? Brilliant defense.
Fritz 🙂

ok, seriously, please explain to me what I don't get......if you can do this, THEN your defense is brilliant. However, until you can do this, a one line rebutle is signs of surrender (this includes you to fat cat)

Sonny:

Fat Cat?? Huh?? My response was just that, a response to EI, NOT a rebuttle to you. BTW it's 'too' not 'to'
Fritz
PS I still don't get the fat cat remark, please explain. Thanks.
Fritz

you don't need to explain gammar to me as I have an English degree in addition to my other degrees. I reserve the right to be a bit dull on grammar when conversing on an internet board.

Now, the fat cat comment was meant as a fun jab at you, and you did get it, otherwise you wouldn't have responded to it.

Ok, back to the issue. Fritz, please present a case in prose that would back-up EI's one-liner, since you apparently feel the same sentiment as he in regards to my comments. Translated: Bring it! Don't sing it!

Sonny:
Sorry about the abrasive stuff, I get heated when I discuss politics. I'm a fat-cat because of supply-side economics and have made my clients $$$$ because of this as well. I don't feel I need to add more to EI's response..."don't fix it lest it's broke." If you want a particular defense or opinion just say so, I'll be glad to debate w/ you. But again sorry that I lost my temper (haven't had a cigar for 3 days)

Fritz

Some people are educated way beyond their inteligence.

This is like trying to teach a pig to sing
It is a waste of time and annoys the pig

I think thats 3 lines but not having a degree in math I may be off by a couple of numbers

"Some people are educated way beyond their inteligence. "

EI, I'd gladly match my "stupidity" with yours any day. You speak with an uneducated tongue, sir. You and 65gto must be in the same bowling league.

Fritz, I totally understand. Ya' know.....no matter how sharp we would present our case, neither of us will jump ship. So, with that in mind, truce.

But, that doesn't apply to you, EI......see, I think it could be fun to try and teach you to sing.

I thought LSU's mascot was a tiger
But I seem to have gotten your goat

Anything else in the way of a reply would prove my porcine analogy.

But feel free to correct my grammar professor.

Yawnnnnnnnn time for my cookies and nap before recess
and fingerpainting