Originally posted by sxecrow
3)There have been so many deaths in Iraq over the last decade. True, Saddam and his henchment were royal dicks and did some horrible things, but the main killer of these civilians (until the last 2 months) have been starvataion and lack of medicine due to economic sanctions instead of bombs.There were many other courses of action to help Iraqi people. I only bring this up because Bush's focus will soon be "freeing the Iraqi people" instead of WMD.
this is the main point of yours that i want to dispute. the people of iraq were not starving because of the economic sanctions imposed by the UN by any means. the people were starving so that Saddam Hussein could live in the lap of luxury and keep his war machine running. saying that the sanctions caused the starvation of millions is just plain ignorance.
4)This war is going to cost the American taxpayer what? I think the last figure was around $8 BILLION for the first month of war and occupation. $8 BILLION!! Do you know how many school's we can build here in FL to ease overcrowding? With $8 BILLION we can finally balance the ****ing budget perhaps? 8 years of Clinton and RECORD economic stability and now 2 years into Emperor Bush's reign and $8 Billion into a war and a defecit instead of surplus like we had before. Perhaps we should just pay for this out of the Bush family's pocketbook? If you can buy the presidency, I'm sure you can afford to conquer Iraq.
secondly, on this point i would like to state that you are giving old Billary Clinton way more credit than he is due. the left always give him credit for the dot-com boom which sent the economy swinging for the fences. this is not the case at all. that "RECORD economic stability" that you preach about in fact had little or nothing to do with Billary or his budget and had everything to do with the introduction of internet stocks and the bandwagon buying of them on wall street into an already growing market.
thirdly, the presidency wasn't bought. it's ridiculous to think that. did you not watch the TV the day after election day? GW was the clear winner in all of the states he took except for Florida, which was riding the fence. CNN also reported these figures before any absentee ballot had been counted. now, you live in tampa right? then i'm sure you're aware of and familiar with the general consensus of the military presence in Tampa, considering Macdill Air Base is where CENTCOM is located(which is a major military command for those of you not well versed on these things). now, before the absentee votes were counted, Florida was riding the fence. after they were counted GW was the clear winner even after Tipper... i mean Al Gore's multiple requests for a recount(which was shameless and the act of a sore loser IMO). reason being is that it's well known that Mr. Gore has no love lost for the military. the majority of the people in the armed services are not so fundamentally stupid as to vote themselves out of a job. i don't think there are many that would. they voted for who they thought was best for them and their families. it's just the use of simple common sense.
personally i think that GW has played a damn fine hand with what he was dealt. in his first year in office he was faced with a terrorist attack that Billary and the majority of the rest of our former presidents (with the exception of FDR with pearl harbor)never had to deal with. that same terrorist attack was targeted at the two structures that was
THE focal point of our pre 9/11 economy. the aftermath of which bankrupted things such as airlines that, before were part of the backbone of our thriving economy, and sent us reeling into a recession that this country and the rest of the world economy will feel for the next 20 years in some way or another. the effects of that attack are not just death, destruction, and chaos for a few moments like the left would have you believe through arguments such as this. to blame the man in charge for things that were beyond his control in any way, shape, or form is simply proposterous IMHO.