Stay the Course, of course.
Everyone’s blogging about Bush claiming he never said the administration’s policy was to “stay the course”. Now, it seems to me that he may have said it at some point, but I’m not about to take the word of a bunch of liberal bloggers and George Stephanopolus (who was Clinton’s lap dog) over the word of our President.
Even if he did say it, you can really take a quote out of context and get it to mean whatever you want. Maybe he said it, maybe the full quote was “We will not stay the course.” My point is that just because the media says something is true doesn’t mean that it is. It’s easy to sit around behind the safety of your computer and claim someone is lying. It’s much more difficult to get in front of a camera, surrounded by your advisors and tell a blatant lie to the world— which is basically what these people are claiming he did. That sound pretty far fetched to me.
Even if you chose to believe that Bush actually said what they’re claiming and it wasn’t taken out of context, you have to realize that it’s just a slogan. Staying the course just means “doing the right thing”, if the right thing happens to be NOT staying the course, an argument could be made that he is still staying the course.
Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, it’s impossible to even talk about this story without remembering that Clinton was able to lie to the entire nation about his indiscretions with an underage White House staff member. So even if Bush is lying, that just sort of makes us even now doesn’t it?
love2all wrote:
Maybe he’s just… oh, I don’t know, a liar?
Back to the Clinton card again? It’s getting old. Really.
If I have to explain again: The guy got a blowjob, he didn’t start a war that killed over a half a million people. I don’t CARE about a (consentual) blowjob. I wasn’t even a Democrat back then and I still didn’t give a flying fuck that his dick was getting sucked. So what?
Bush is an idiot and has lied on camera dozens, maybe even hundreds of times. The sooner you and the rest of “Red America” wake up and realize that, the better off this country will be. I love this country; it’s very sad what it’s become.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
speedball wrote:
You really have to put yourself in the minds of the terrorist. They see our troops defending themselves against attack and look at them as sissies. The way they do battle is through martrydom. On 9/11, they lost, what? Maybe 20 soldiers? We’ve lost almost 3,000! Sure, for us that’s a horrible sacrifice. But I tell you what, it sure scares the hell out of them. They’re willing to blow themselves up one at a time, but they can’t come anywhere near the volume of people that we can continue to sacrifice for our freedom.
And pull your head out of the sand, we haven’t killed over half a million people. There aren’t even that many people in Iraq, so unless you’re suggesting we’ve killed every Iraqii, you should check your math.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
love2all wrote:
There are over 27 million Iraqis. Check your math.
A publication of a report by a team of academic researchers from Johns Hopkins University has estimated that the number of extra fatalities caused by the war is 655,000, or 2.5% of the Iraqi population. I realize that number has been debated in the media but they have stated they are confident that the true number lies somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000 extra deaths.
But never mind that, let’s just go with the number commonly accepted: about 45,000 to 50,000 Iraqi civilians (not terrorists) Is that acceptable to you? Sure, they’re not Americans but what difference does that make – we ARE supposedly there because we’re trying to help them, correct?
You stated “they can’t come anywhere near the volume of people that we can continue to sacrifice for our freedom”. Sure, let’s keep sacrificing thousands of our soldiers for years and years and years (pull-out is not expected until at LEAST 2010) when no one really knows what we’re fighting for. I have a cousin in Iraq.. he wants to come home so badly and doesn’t even know why he’s there anymore.
Again, 9/11 has NOTHING to do with Iraq. Bush and Co. may want you to believe that, that’s why they keep repeating it on TV – to keep you angry about the injustice we endured on 9/11 and to justify the war. But even Bush himself has admitted that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. Here are his words at a press conference, televised on TV:
BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were…
REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 2:18 pm | Permalink
love2all wrote:
Additionally, Monica Lewinsky was not underage. She was 22 at the time.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
darryl wrote:
Here, have some Koolaid… take a long drink. That’s a god boy! Now repeat after me, “It’s Clinton’s fault!”
Now go watch FOX news like a good boy!
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 2:37 pm | Permalink
speedball wrote:
I think we’re basically saying the same thing, we’re just saying it differently.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
love2all wrote:
Speedball, please do explain because I don’t understand how we’re saying the same thing differently.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 7:56 pm | Permalink
speedball wrote:
Well we don’t agree on the numbers of people who have been killed, or even which people who have been killed we should even be counting, but I think we both agree that despite some rough spots, the administration is doing a pretty good job defending our freedom and protecting us from terror. If I’ve misunderstood, please elaborate.
Posted on 23-Oct-06 at 10:28 pm | Permalink
love2all wrote:
No, I don’t think this administration is doing a good job defending our freedom. At all. They’re not even defending our freedom.. . if they wanted to do that, we would have had gotten the REAL terrorists: Bin Laden and his cronies. The people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED us.
We are in more danger now than ever. Iraqis do NOT want us there and I see why… we’re killing their innocent people! Would you put up with that if a foreign country wanted to overthrow our U.S. government without our permission and killed thousands upon thousands of our families and children? Even if they supposedly had “good intentions?” Hell no, you wouldn’t put up with it. We’d be angry and would be making plans to get back at them as soon as we were able to.
That’s exactly what will happen - we need to pull out now and admit our mistake. We have gotten in so much hot water by being there especially since we’re not even there for what Bush said we were there for.. THEY HAVE NO WMDs!
Posted on 24-Oct-06 at 6:51 am | Permalink
speedball wrote:
Sorry honey, but in war there are collateral damages. I guess you forgot about a little lesson we learned in Hiroshima about winning a war?
You need to pull your head out of the sand. Have you ever met someone that goes around and says, “Sorry” every time they step in front of you in a hallway or tries to grab a pen from the pen holder on your desk at the same time you do? It gets annoying VERY fast. “Sorry” “oops, sorry” “so sorry” “excuse me” “my fault”…STAB, STAB, STAB, STAB, STAB!!!!
Is that the impression you want to give the world about the United States? If we go around appologizing for everything it will only show the terrorists that we are weak and annoying and they will want to kill us with the quickness.
Also, how do you suppose we are in more danger now than ever? I watch the news and can see people getting killed every day in Iraq. I almost never see someone getting killed in the US. We want to spread our peace, and they want to spread the killing…which do you prefer?
Posted on 24-Oct-06 at 9:29 am | Permalink