Great article, thanks for posting. end

That's a very illustrative example of the wrong-headed partisan thinking that got Max voted out of office here in Georgia.

RLTW

and which Puck proved otherwise below.

Please tell me that you don't believe that Republicans are above 'partisan thinking'. I'd like to retain some of the respect I have for you.

If you would be so kind as to educate me, would you mind pointing out the inaccuracies in Cleland's statement? I'd love to know.

-- Modified on 5/14/2004 9:55:54 AM

No denying that Republican's have their partisans too, Puck. Both sides are equal offenders in that.

I'm a simple-minded southerner, so forgive the simple response to your query. But here is one glaring fallacy from Cleland's article:

"In his campaign for president he gives no indication of wanting to go to war. In fact, he decries the overextension of American military might and says other nations must do more. However, unbeknownst to the American public, the president's own Pentagon advisers have already cooked up a plan to go to war."

Now again, bear with my simple-minded self, but a war plan for Iraq was first formulated in 1998, before EvilBush(tm) was in office. And if Pentagon planners are not busy creating and revising war plans for our potential adversaries, then somebody isn't doing their freaking job very well! No? Hell, we may even have a war plan for Canada. EvilBush(tm) probably wants to lay waste to the Great White North too.

That is Democratic partisan dribble. And stuff like that does not win elections in center-right states.

RLTW

First, he was speaking of Johnson and leaving the readre to draw his own comparisons to Bush.

Second, of course there are contingency plans for attacking everybody in the world - and probably individual cities and states in the US as well. The glaring difference between contingency plans and reality is that Bush wasn't actively looking for an excuse to invade Canada from the beginning of his administration.

You Lefties keep suggesting that "Bush was[] actively looking for an excuse to invade" Iraq, but keep failing to provide any evidence.

Aside from that, regime change in Iraq has been formal American policy since 1998.

That's another difference between you Lefties and conservatives.  Whereas you Lefties want to spread your platitudinous bullshit like manure, hoping against hope that something will grow from it, even if nothing ever does, conservatives will, when a policy is actually adopted, do something about it, and achieve the stated goal.

There is a difference between having something as a stated desire (i.e. Iraqi regime change under Clinton), and the committing of hundreds of thousands of American troops to do it, which Bush did.  

Clinton may well have KNOWN that to actually invade Iraq would result in an unmanageable fiasco AFTER the overthrow, hence he never acted on the stated policy desire.   Bush certainly SHOULD have known this, but in his case, he CREATED the fiasco we have now.  Just remember Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule with respect to Iraq:  You break it, You own it!

Do you mean his book or his testimony?? If you did your homework their were almost as many inconsistencies as Clinton's testimony to the grand jury...

Anyone who seriously contends that Bush/Cheney did not, from Day 1 of Cheney's inauguration, desire and plan to take out Saddam, is simply sufferring from denial, or blatant partisanship.  If you are among those sufferring, then all of your posts on the subject are simply unworthy of attention.