Wow. Seeing his poor wittle hissy fit on the Senate floor today makes me wonder: are we dealing with an idiot liberal or a crazy one?

I see that noone wants to comment, nor have any of you posted in the twelve or so hours since I left my PC. Interesting.

How about that stupid wimp in the white house trying to look like John Wayne? He comes off mainly looking like a wimp who's trying to look like John Wayne. Nothing could be more ridiculous. A two gun jerk. He'sd real brave as long as he's surrounded by a thousand bodyguards. But he's got such a big hard on for the Saddam Hussein why doesn't he challenge Saddam to a duel? Is the gutless wonder too chicken? He's willing to risk your life but he's not willing to risk his own.

Umm...lemme see: Should GW Bush take on an entire nation, bristling with chem/bio weapons, all by himself? Or should he send thousands of well-armed and trained men and women out to kill the sonofa##### and save millions of lives in the process?

Theory.....

Put 'Nuky' Bush in a room with 'Scud' Hussain.
Whoever comes out wins.

Just a thought!!!

I like the theory, Alan. I'd bet every last cent on Bush, given it were a clean fight, not one where Saddam would conceal a grenade in his...orifice.

It would probably go someting like this....

Nuky would accuse Scud of hiding a grenade in his orifice.
Scud would deny it.
Nuky would ask Scud to prove it.
Scud would accuse Nuky of lusting after his orifice.
Nuky would tell him that if he does'nt show him he'll thump him.
Scud would tell Nuky to get lost.
Nuky would get upset 'cos nobody talks to him like that.
Scud would get worried because he knows he might get a thump.
Nuky thumps Scud.

They leave the room and tell their mates.

Result....
Nuky and Scuds mates are forever thumping each other.
America needs the approval of the UN because then you will have more mates than Scud.

Well, I hope I comprehended what I just read. However, I find this not to be a compelling argument. If we go to the UN, they will verbally "thump" our plans. We will be weakened, which a nationalist/racist/Zionist such as myself does not enjoy.

Daschle's bad acting aside, he is right...
The president has been using the war on terroism for political gain since it started. If one doesn't know that, watch the news a little. His exact words
"the senate is more interested in protected special interests than providing for the defense of the American people."
Not only is that a lie, it's obviously politicizing the war. I say give blame were blame is due. This time it's George W. Bush.

Because this President follows the law, Jerry.



I think Bush would lose. Saddam outnumbers him 4 to 1! (haha... get it? Saddam has three "stunt men")



Of course he has. Just as the Democrats have used social security for political gain since it's been around.

If he didn't do it, what kind of a President would he be? This is politics at its finest.

And since we're throwing around political quotes, take a look at what Daschle said earlier this year:


Mike

Sounds about right to me. But the president has been the one pushing for "non-partisan participation" either be non-partisan or admit your pushing for republicans. Honesty is all I ask...

I can agree with you there.

I think we all knew the "new tone in Washington" was a bunch of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Mike

i disagree with mike, he isnt using it for political gain. he is just acting like a president which we are not used to from the last 8 years. if 9/11 wouldnt have happend, iraq still would have been an issue.

Kindly define "acting like a president" so that Mike and I will understand the context

well he didnt tend to anything really. national defense is a joke because of him, we let our gaurd down in every way possible. he cut the militarys budget for more domestic spending to keep the voters happy. as well as made damaging decisions that affected INS & CIA.

I was refering to our current president. How is a statement accusing the senate of apathy concerning america's saftey, not politicizing the war on terror?

um, im not sure if you were talking to me or not. but i will answer it, it isnt political because like i said before about how the left was all for going to iraq when there were less reasons then there were now((pretty much to take attention off the sex scandal)). i think the democrats are afraid if he takes out ANOTHER madman he will become even more popular than he already is completely shutting them out in an election, they are afraid of losing power. democrats are waiting till someone like daschle opens his mouth then following his example no matter what ... republicans on fox are using this against them. making them defend themselves against things they shouldnt, but do anyways because thats what democrats do, cover up for one another. those 2 congressmen or senetors or whatever that went to iraq and made some anti american statements, hannity and o-reilly had some democrats on there and letting them defend the guys saying things like, "you really think it was ok for them tell the iraqis that bush is a liar" and things like that, and they are saying yes. that is completely political to me and the right is using it against them, right before election too. hah

That is more of an argument that both democrats AND the president are politicizing the war. Which is true...

i dont think it has anything to do with politics on bushs side, he is completely justified. do we really need another 9/11 to understand that hussien is evil? he gased his own people, and hates us more than anyone else because we beat him so bad. who is to say he wont nuke us? who else does he want to nuke? biggest baddest country((like every other terrorist)), and one that he also has a personal bone to pick with.

Whether or not Bush is right about Saddam has no bearing on the fact that he's been using the war on terror to stay popular (and avoid the economy lately) as well as to help elect republicans to public office. He's been out campaining for them for most of his days lately... He was in Alabama (where I live), pushing for Riley (Republican Candidate for Gov.) not too long ago. Boy, did he choose the wrong candidate.

Politics? ----- In Washington? ----- Get out of here!

But seriously...

Nearly anything the President does policy-wise is in hope of political gain.

He's a businessman. He is the CEO of our nation. He wants to keep his job.

He knows that the party of the President almost always loses Congressional seats after mid-term elections.

He knows that war equals high job approval ratings.

And he knows that if all of the Democrats came out against war with Iraq, the Republicans may have a shot at keeping the House, and gaining control of the Senate.

While I am not saying he is doing the out of pure politics, I am saying that politics is certainly playing a part.


Wasn't this topic about Daschle, though?

Mike

well i think he gains politically from it, but doesnt do it for political gain. and he isnt ignoring the economy, he spent billions of dollars making sure the airlines didnt go under. we were already at the start of a recession bcuz of clinton, then the WTCs dropped. the economy doesnt change overnight, as you can see clinton rode supply side economics till some of his final days in office. even tho it started going down before clinton left, people like to say it was when he first stepped into office. which is impossible bcuz, again, the economy doesnt change overnight.

Mike:
I was assesing the validity of Daschel's claim that Bush is politicizing the war.
before that we were just poking fun at him without considering what he said.

SD:
what did clinton do to cause a recession?

What did Clinton do? High interest rates, high tax rates, and slashed our military, though that is irrelevant when arguing from an economical standpoint.

Clinton as every "peace time" president before him reduced military spending. We have NEVER spent money on the military when there was no war to be faught.

Clinton gave me a 5% raise and increased my GI Bill from $14,400 to $19,600. He also created a budget surplus, I guess you forgot about that?

He raised taxes for one. The economy steadily went down the whole he was in office, it was high yes ... but not forever. All he had to do was raise taxes and ignore it thinking it will substain itself. When people have less money, they have less money to spend and it doesnt get circulated until the government buys some 200 dollar toilet seat from china.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/clintec.htm

The little prosperity we did have while clinton was in office, was not because of any economic plan he made.

Not to be a stickler here, Roy, but I have to point out that 5% over 8 years is not that good of a pay increase. Especially for the job description.

Who is going to start the "Was Clinton a good President" topic?

I'd suggest "Old News" for that one .

Mike

I hear you Mike but considering the faact that NO OTHER recent President gave us a raise like that I have to point this out.

The military gets an automatic 2% "cost of living" ahem """"raise"""" evry year but under clinton I got 7% one year.

Hey, I'm all about paying military folks more money and starting new programs to keep losers out of our country's uniforms.

Jerry, what did you know that the rest of us didn't on September 26th?

Or was it just a coincidence that you suggested on that day Bush challenge Saddam to a duel? This idea has now made national news - Iraq VP Suggests Bush-Saddam Duel

OK, so which one of you is the Iraqi Vice President and why are you stealing Jerry's ideas?

Roy, Clinton, not slashed, but BUTCHERED the military budget. He said himself, he "loathes the military". Im pretty sure the only reason he paid you more, was for an excuse to put even less money into developing our military.

Every peace time president has reduced military spending durning times of "peace". When you dump money into the military you take it away from schools and hospitals and that makes more people angry than cutting back spending on something we don't "need".

You have to spend where it is needed and we didn't need drastic military spending under Clinton.