- Dec 16, 2006
- 7,401
- 785
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The big difference now is between the candidates and their 'supporters', that is the supporters who have paid any attention to the important things going on instead of running off at the mouth about the details.
Some background on Hillary Clinton.
Democrats criticised G W Bush for starting two wars, and finishing none despite many promises.
BROKEN PROMISES
In front of the banner 'Mission Accomplished' G W Bush opened with 'Admiral Kelly, ...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.'
At the end of his first term he claimed that the surge had been a success and that victory was within our grasp. Any Democrat who won after that would be charged with having lost the war so very much had been put into.
Eventually it was Obama's term and many Republicans still charged him with having lost the war.
NOW
The DNC has picked the supposedly Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton who had argued in favor of the invasion of Iraq for 5 years, even after the flimsy excuse of having forgotten to make an exit strategy was no longer believed. Then she again supported destroying the state of Libya, which was easier because we stayed focused on destroying the state apparatus instead of occupying land as well.
She had the dubious reputation of having been a key factor in starting both the Iraq and Libyan wars. And now she wants to step in to the Russian ally Syria where Russia has made a good start at eradicating ISIS, something we were not very focused on, and declare a no-fly zone, kick the Russians out, antagonise the Russians and jeopardize our own security in order to start spending our money there too.
Basically Bush / Rumsfeld / Cheney all over again.
As a committed Democrat supporter I would have voted for any Democrat, but not that one, not one who loves war so much.
Some background on Hillary Clinton.
Democrats criticised G W Bush for starting two wars, and finishing none despite many promises.
BROKEN PROMISES
In front of the banner 'Mission Accomplished' G W Bush opened with 'Admiral Kelly, ...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.'
At the end of his first term he claimed that the surge had been a success and that victory was within our grasp. Any Democrat who won after that would be charged with having lost the war so very much had been put into.
Eventually it was Obama's term and many Republicans still charged him with having lost the war.
NOW
The DNC has picked the supposedly Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton who had argued in favor of the invasion of Iraq for 5 years, even after the flimsy excuse of having forgotten to make an exit strategy was no longer believed. Then she again supported destroying the state of Libya, which was easier because we stayed focused on destroying the state apparatus instead of occupying land as well.
She had the dubious reputation of having been a key factor in starting both the Iraq and Libyan wars. And now she wants to step in to the Russian ally Syria where Russia has made a good start at eradicating ISIS, something we were not very focused on, and declare a no-fly zone, kick the Russians out, antagonise the Russians and jeopardize our own security in order to start spending our money there too.
Basically Bush / Rumsfeld / Cheney all over again.
As a committed Democrat supporter I would have voted for any Democrat, but not that one, not one who loves war so much.
Last edited: