- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is the Liberal "Base" excited that Obama Declared War on ISIS?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 7:30 am to Crow Pie
Posted on 9/11/14 at 7:30 am to Crow Pie
You guys actually see no difference in wars under Clinton and wars under Bush?
Let me give you a few hints.... In the wars under Clinton, American lives lost was in the single digits; with Bush 4 digits. In treasure under Clinton the costs was in the hundreds of millions and low billions. With Bush it reach a trillion. With Clinton we had no occupation. With Bush we had occupations.
You got one thing right... Clinton had a surplus. Bush lied and said Iraqi oil would pay for it all.
And yet I have never seen one Con blame Bush for that lie.
Go figure.
Let me give you a few hints.... In the wars under Clinton, American lives lost was in the single digits; with Bush 4 digits. In treasure under Clinton the costs was in the hundreds of millions and low billions. With Bush it reach a trillion. With Clinton we had no occupation. With Bush we had occupations.
You got one thing right... Clinton had a surplus. Bush lied and said Iraqi oil would pay for it all.
And yet I have never seen one Con blame Bush for that lie.
Go figure.
2
Posted on 9/11/14 at 7:32 am to Vegas Bengal
Would Bush have gone to war if Clinton had accepted the Sudanese offer of Bin Laden?
Posted on 9/11/14 at 7:39 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
Let me give you a few hints.... In the wars under Clinton
No American interests were pursued - merely humanitarian.
OEF (Afghanistan) were directly in response to 9/11. OIF was discretionary, but justifiable (and Congressionally approved) based on Hussein's misconduct. I can disagree with how we fought both wars, but not the goals themselves - and they were both directly in support of U.S. interests (unlike Clinton's playing at war.)
quote:
Clinton had a surplus.
Myth. Propoganda. Spin. Accounting games. I can't call them lies, but the most fair way to describe this was the budget was in "near balance".
The reason I know this? The debt never went down. So, if there was a surplus (Hint: there wasn't) - somebody stole it.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News