Williston, ND Active Issues

Yep...

Change we can believe in....ultimately leads to...
Yes,we can....
Yes, we will....
Yes we did....
and yes, we will continue to do so...

the truth in irony in action....

;o)
R

Jibslider wrote:

---

rwaitman wrote:

---

Bill Clinton, himself, on both 60 Minutes and in a Time magazine interview, defended Bush on the invasion of Iraq.  He then went on to dismiss the notion that the war was about protecting petroleum of other business interests. He said, talking about Saddam Hussein, "What if he fails to comply (with terms of defeat), and we fail to act?"  George Bush, apparently to Mr. Larsen's great dismay, showed the strength of conviction to do so, and should be applauded for that.

---

Of course President Clinton defended Bush on the invasion of Iraq. ANYBODY who didn't defend President Bush on the invasion of Iraq or ANYTHING Bush did immediately post 09/11 was labeled "un-American" or a "terrorist" by the media, administration, and general population of the U.S.!! Look at the outrage that was shown when elected officials and presidential candidates refused to wear an American flag lapel pin. "You're anti-American Mr. Obama because you won't wear the stars and stripes on your suit pin."

Anybody who didn't defend Bush's actions immediately post 09/11 risked accumulating these "anti-American" labels, and risked their constituates votes in up-coming elections. In President Clinton's case, he risked pusing votes away from his wife's upcoming presidential bid.

My opinion of the war is that President Bush was running on an invasion high. He had just retaliated on terrorist groups in Aphganistan which boosted his approval rating. His attacks failed to destroy/capture the supposed mastermind of the 09/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, and Mr. Bush needed to accomplish a successful removal of a "bad guy", so he went after Saddam Husein.

---

Well Jib....obviously you have your opinion, and I have mine.... but I will stick with the contention that Bill Clinton, for once anyway, was actually, and simply, just speaking the truth as he saw it...but I appreciate you trying... the dialogue is still good, and I think we both like a challenge. By the way, how was your cross country drive?
;o)
R

PS ....and you forgot to throw in the one where President Obama would not cover his heart with his hand to show respect for the flag, in addition to not wearing the pin.  I still have trouble with that one.  I believe he does both now that he is sitting in the catbird seat. How is that for catering to the votes, and then tossing them aside?  That man is GOOD! 

-- Edited by rwaitman at 20:20, 2009-02-11

I think we should move this discussion to a new thread.  It doesn't really reflect this particular threads title.  Next to post is it...NOT IT!!

hummm...Why Wouldn't Obama ware that little pin flag or pledge the flag?  Ah but he has admitted to attending American Flag burning ceremonies.  You just wait until this "honeymoon" is over.  You will see the true face of Obama the Great Socialist.

Welcome aboard! Glad to have you here!

Hopefully you'll enjoy the site.  We have some strong personalities but they are also compassionate people as well so you have to take everything you see here with a grain of salt.

Thanks for joining and don't be afraid to bring your 2 cents!

So why was it so "American" to support Bush immediatly after but eventually became "Un-American" at some point in time?  I don't believe the "invasion high" thing though.  There were facts that supported Iraq's possession of WMD's.  Many in that region died as a result of Hussein using them.  And Hussein's defiance to let inspectors in only made the outcome more apparent.  How many resolutions did it take?

I have no doubt that a response to Mr. Larry Larsen's recent post on the Herald guestbook would take up way too much space which simply reinforces my suppostion that it is not the proper forum for the sort of discussion we would like.....soooooo i am gonna post it here.  Enjoy!  or not!

An argument can be made, contrary to Mr. Larsen's belief, that the administration which actually precipitated the invasion of Iraq was that of Bill Clinton. It was Bill Clinton who approved and authorized the missile strikes, collectively known as Operation Desert Fox, against Iraq in December of 1998 as a response to the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein in honoring his agreed upon terms of defeat from the 1st Gulf War.

Mr. Larsen's conjecture that the mindset of our former President (GW Bush) in attacking Iraq to make a 'statement', and 'wanting to better his father' is simply an attempt to present his liberal perceptions as factual. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Larsen is able to read minds.

Iraq was the most logical place to initiate a response to the ongoing and escalating attacks on the greater civilized world by radical islamists,  particularly when coupled with the fear that a propagation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by Iraq would then result in them falling into the hands of those terrorists. There were multiple reasons as to "why" and it is a much more complicated subject than Mr. Larsen's dismissive one word comment as an 'easy' target.

Mr. Larsen states that 'our leadership falsely made the argument that Iraq was developing WMD and was conspiring with al-Qaida.'  While no large stockpiles of WMD were discovered, there was no doubt that Saddam Hussein both had them and used them, and had every intention of rebuilding or developing his arsenal of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He would NOT allow the United Nations to verify that he did NOT have them, and was NOT developing them.  The entire civilized world believed that he had them, or was developing them, not just George Bush and the United States. This non compliance was the foundation for Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. 

Finally, while there is no overwhelming evidence that Saddam was strongly in cahoots with al-Qaida per se, there were enough documented instances of cooperation between the two, that by extrapolation, it was reasonable to presume the connection would become stronger with time. 

Bill Clinton, himself, on both 60 Minutes and in a Time magazine interview, defended Bush on the invasion of Iraq.  He then went on to dismiss the notion that the war was about protecting petroleum of other business interests. He said, talking about Saddam Hussein, "What if he fails to comply (with terms of defeat), and we fail to act?"  George Bush, apparently to Mr. Larsen's great dismay, showed the strength of conviction to do so, and should be applauded for that.

Much of the rest of Mr. Larsen's post is at least in part truthful, but he continues to spin the issues in the most negative light. His glass is most always "half-empty", particularly when it supports his own distorted views of the world and its' affairs.  While I take exception to his continual negativity, I am always willing to debate and discuss those issues of interest.  However, in my opinion, I think devoting so much space to these sorts of discussion is not appropriate for the concept of the Herald Guestbook.

;o)
Randy

-- Edited by rwaitman at 09:52, 2009-02-06

Randy, shake it off.  YOU are the voice for the rest of us on that Hearald cite.  I'm TIRED of Larry Larson getting kudos for every dang thing he writes!  If you'll notice any one who opposes Larry is not rude or crass, but those that oppose the consertives, them liberal claws come out.  Keep up the good fight. And thank you Randy.

  ....and I guess I am becoming the Devil Incarnate again.  Maybe someone can get the Herald to initiate a political page to compete with this one... and I really DO NOT work for the Herald.

It's a rough old life ain't it?

;o)

Some people again have asked how to get to this site on the Williston Guestbook Opinions.  I didn't think it was my place to do so - so Steve Powell could you please furnish this information to them.   Thanks so much.