(May 9, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: And then Vietnam showed the world how to beat a titan. You would think that lesson might have stuck, it being a lot more recent than World War II.

We never invaded North Vietnam or even tried to marched on Hanoi. It was decided that such an escalation of that conflict did not have a positive expectation. We never seriously considered trying to bring democracy to North Vietnam. The situations are not analogous.

(May 9, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: And then Vietnam showed the world how to beat a titan. You would think that lesson might have stuck, it being a lot more recent than World War II.

We never invaded North Vietnam or even tried to marched on Hanoi. It was decided that such an escalation of that conflict did not have a positive expectation. We never seriously considered trying to bring democracy to North Vietnam. The situations are not analogous.

In the sense that they were decade-long quagmires with no real aim and driven by flawed, faulty goals, justified by deliberate falsehoods and ended up being complete failures which wasted the lives of thousands of American servicemen and far more of the local population, they are analogous to the point of absurdity.

(May 9, 2014 at 8:27 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: We never invaded North Vietnam or even tried to marched on Hanoi. It was decided that such an escalation of that conflict did not have a positive expectation. We never seriously considered trying to bring democracy to North Vietnam. The situations are not analogous.

In the sense that they were decade-long quagmires with no real aim and driven by flawed, faulty goals, justified by deliberate falsehoods and ended up being complete failures which wasted the lives of thousands of American servicemen and far more of the local population, they are analogous to the point of absurdity.

Again you are being "results orientated". We would have been justified going to war with Japan even if it lead to being conquered by the Japanese. How the Iraqi war turned out has no bearing on whether it was justified or not.

No, you're right, it doesn't. The fact that Bush's pretext for the war was a great, big, embarrassing series of bald-faced lies has no bearing on the fact that it was an absolute disaster, both in foreign and domestic terms.

(May 9, 2014 at 10:15 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: No, you're right, it doesn't. The fact that Bush's pretext for the war was a great, big, embarrassing series of bald-faced lies has no bearing on the fact that it was an absolute disaster, both in foreign and domestic terms.

I don't know that Bush actually lied in making his case for going to war. He could have been mislead concerning Saddam's WMD program as was Clinton.

I don't believe for one minute that motivation for war was WMD. So in the sense that I believe Bush omitted the real motivation for war in making the case to the American people....I am not happy with him.

(May 9, 2014 at 10:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't know that Bush actually lied in making his case for going to war. He could have been mislead concerning Saddam's WMD program as was Clinton.

He could have waited until there was actual proof that WMD existed.

Quote:I don't believe for one minute that motivation for war was WMD. So in the sense that I believe Bush omitted the real motivation for war in making the case to the American people....I am not happy with him.

Well, if he just came out and admitted that it was primarily to line the pockets of Halliburton, et. al., then it wouldn't have gone over as well.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:33 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 10:23 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't know that Bush actually lied in making his case for going to war. He could have been mislead concerning Saddam's WMD program as was Clinton.

He could have waited until there was actual proof that WMD existed.

Quote:I don't believe for one minute that motivation for war was WMD. So in the sense that I believe Bush omitted the real motivation for war in making the case to the American people....I am not happy with him.

Well, if he just came out and admitted that it was primarily to line the pockets of Halliburton, et. al., then it wouldn't have gone over as well.

Obama didn't want to stimulate the economy with his American Recovery and Re-investment act....he wanted to line the pockets of his campaign donors...like his buddies at Solyndra.

(May 10, 2014 at 1:45 am)Heywood Wrote: Obama didn't want to stimulate the economy with his American Recovery and Re-investment act....he wanted to line the pockets of his campaign donors...like his buddies at Solyndra.

Just like any true Marxist socialist communist would do.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09...tail=email

Quote:Rep. Paul Ryan is still complaining about CNN’s Candy Crowley’s 2012 debate moderation. Specifically, about the fact that she corrected Mitt Romney for saying President Obama took 14 days to call the 9/11 attack on the Benghazi compound “an act of terror,” when Obama said those words in the Rose Garden the very day after the killings of four Americans.

No wonder republicunts hate facts. So inconvenient.

(May 10, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09...tail=email

Quote:Rep. Paul Ryan is still complaining about CNN’s Candy Crowley’s 2012 debate moderation. Specifically, about the fact that she corrected Mitt Romney for saying President Obama took 14 days to call the 9/11 attack on the Benghazi compound “an act of terror,” when Obama said those words in the Rose Garden the very day after the killings of four Americans.

No wonder republicunts hate facts. So inconvenient.

In the Rose Garden, Obama said: "No acts of terror" not "an act of terror" as you claim. You need to get your facts straight. In the Rose Garden Obama specifically called the attack "brutal" and "outrageous" but he never specifically called it "an act of terror". Just because he used the phrase "no acts of terror" in his speech doesn't mean he was calling it a terrorist act. He was referring to terrorists acts in the general (hence his use of the plural).

What is a fact is that the day after the attack, Obama agreed he is reluctant to call this specific act a terrorist act. In fact he admits he believes there were people out to target Americans from the start, yet his administration sent Rice out on the Sunday morning stump to portray this as a spontaneous uprising. Obama lied. Obama mislead people during the debate and Crowley and CBS gave him cover.