That Was Then, This Is Now
We’re The Democrats And We’re Here To Help:
Nancy Pelosi on April 24, 2006 when gas was $2.91 a gallon:
“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”
Nancy Pelosi yesterday:
“This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax, it’s an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this administration. It’s a decoy to punt your attention away from the fact that their policies have produced $4-a-gallon gasoline.”
So much for that Democrat “commonsense plan”. It’s so much easier to just Blame Bush ™.
It will be fun to see what the Democrats do if and when they grab total control of the federal government and there is no one else to blame.
Oh c’mon QCBaby. You know what we’ll do when things go wrong. Republicans blame Clinton for everything. Your pal Tiger tries to hint that Clinton is partly to blame for Iraq. We’ll just keep blaming Bush. For the most part, we’ll be correct.
Comment by the oracle | July 11, 2008
Oracle,
You need to stick to trying to make sense of your own thoughts (which you hardly ever do), and quit trying to make my comments mean something that they do not.
1. I have not stated that Clinton is “to blame for Iraq” – as there is nothing in Iraq to blame anyone for. We are protecting US interets in Iraq, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq and we are helping to keep the Middle East stable, by being in Iraq.
2. I have stated that Clinton, Albright, Gore, Kerry, HRC, Kennedy, etc. – all have had the same WMD-rhetoric/ agreement that the Bush Administration had.
Thank you for allowing me to point out again that the Clinton Administration had the WMD issue in place long before the Bush Administration (and fellow Dem’s agreed) – I love to make fools of you, “Bush lied” folks!
Comment by tiger woods | July 11, 2008
Clinton never ordered an invasion. Your post proves what I have said about you and Tiger. Thank you for hinting that Clinton was complicit in the Iraq invasion with your last sentence in your point #2 up there. The rest of your reply is so ridiculous, your readers don’t need any help from me disseminating it’s right wing rhetoric.
Comment by the oracle | July 11, 2008
All I have said is that, with regard to the WMD’s, the Bush Administration position was the same as the Clinton Administration.
Is this too difficult to follow?
Comment by tiger woods | July 11, 2008
Then admit that Clinton showed superior judgement to Bush regarding an invasion.
Comment by the oracle | July 11, 2008
Oracle you need to get your facts straight. Clinton did invade Iraq on numerous occasions. I do not remember him actually sending in ground troops though he did have them in the region. It is very possible that he did either overtly or covertly without exposing it to the public. However during his reign he was constantly sending in bombing missions and even used missiles on targets inside of Iraq. At first it was in retaliation for finding out about an assasination plot on G. Bush Sr. However he also used the WMD excuse to invade the country.
Comment by Bruce Banner | July 11, 2008
Our troops were already there from The Gulf War Bruce. How can you possibly call any action Clinton took to enforce irqi compliance as an invasion anyway? You guys are trying hard to stretch to save Tiger from looking like a completely blind Bush apologist. Speaking of blind Bush apologists, THE ORACLE extends his sympathy to the family of Tony Snow.
Comment by the oracle | July 12, 2008
Oracle, Clinton was running regular bombing runs on Iraqi targets. I am sure Saddam just called Bill up and said here are your targets today. Please bomb here, here and here. If Billy was not invited by Saddam to bomb then it is an invasion. There is not any stretch that Clinton was invading Iraq over WMD’s on a regular basis. Not only was he bombing the country he was also conspiring with UN to impose sanctions on Iraq. I have seen estimates of as high as a million or more children died as a result of those sanctions. Bill Clinton’s hands are as dirty if not more so than George Bush. Quit lying to yourself and others.
Comment by Bruce Banner | July 13, 2008
I forgot to give you a link I was going to include. Leftwing Ramsey Clark is not one of my favorite people but in the following link you will see a discussion of the Clinton years at war that included a quote from Clark’s book “The Children are Dying” estimating one million children killed from the Clinton embargo on Iraq.
http://www.blackseek.com/articles/2001/03/tcc_phalaprex2.htm
Comment by Bruce Banner | July 13, 2008
Let me get this straight Hulk. You are saying Clinton ordered the Iraq invasion? Bush just escalated it? And Bill’s hands are as dirty as Bush’s. So the original dirty handed guy was Bush Sr. for orchestrating the Gulf War. Am I correct in thinking that you were against the Gulf War which booted Iraq out of Kuwait? You know, I’m starting to like you buddy.
Comment by the oracle | July 13, 2008
I am saying everything the every thing that has happened since we left Iraq in the first gulf war is just an extension of the first gulf war. We have never been at peace with Iraq since the first Bush pulled the troops out of the country. Bush-Clinton-Bush have all has their hands in tis War with Iraq. The last Bush just had the cojones to remove Saddam Hussein permanently. That is what the first Bush should have done. That is what Clinton should have done afterwards.
I do not think the first war was unjust. I think it was a botched opportunity to remove a threat. What happened afterwards with Clinton and Bush Jr. was predictable. It was something that had to be done. That means death, destruction and dirty hands. Killing is bad though often necessary especially when dealing with the Saddam Husseins of the world. I do not think that Bush Jr. was wrong to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was something Clinton should have and probably would have if the Republicans were not busy giggling like adolescent voyeurs and playing political games with his sexual misconduct. Saddam would have eventually became a threat and it is obvious that from the retardation of our spy services that we would not have known until it is too late. When someone threatens you with bodily harm, Saddam was certainly doing that, you can either ignore him to he hurts you or you can pick a point in time to remove the individual threatening you. Think of it in terms of the police involved with someone holding a gun and threatening people. They have no way of knowing if the gun is loaded or even if the shooter has the cojones to pull the trigger. You negotiate until you think that the shooter is past the negotiating stage or you get an open shot at the individual. You then kill the shooter. You do not worry whether the gun is loaded. You have to assume it is loaded even if the best information you have cannot prove the loaded gun theory. The threat of death is looming whether the gun is loaded or not. You do not worry if he has the cojones to pull the trigger you have to assume he is willing or he would not put himself in to the position to begin with. So if at some point you get the shot you take it. That is what Bush did. He took the shot.
Comment by Bruce Banner | July 13, 2008
I agree with your comments Bruce, but I am thinking that the recent history in Iraq should end the remaining talking-point of the initial Iraq invasion, which is reflected in your comment, “botched an opportunity to remove a threat (Saddam).”
First, the removal of Saddam was not the issue in the first Iraq invasion. The goal was to liberate Kuwait. This was accomplished.
Second, we have seen the long-lasting result of removing Saddam – a very unstable Iraq. If we do not have the backbone to see the mission through after the events of 9-11, we certainly would not have had the patience to endure this effort at that time.
Comment by tiger woods | July 14, 2008
In the meantime, McCain plays right into the hands of the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Iran and other oil rich mideastern nations by saying he will stay in Iraq for 100 years. As long as we’re there, the monarchs have us to blame for all the miseries of the Arab World. They can propagandize hatred of the “occupying infidels” while abusing women and just being no good pricks in general.
Comment by the oracle | July 14, 2008