Oh, and the answer to OP's question is "B".

As I have said before libs should love republicans for making the tax code so progressive with our "tax cuts." Almost half the entire population of income earners were removed from the tax roles with these "tax cuts for the wealthy." The top 10% pays 66% of all taxes. The top 50% pays 97%. And if a tax cut stimulates economic growth and increases revenues is it really the tax cut's fault there is a 911 to depress the economy and then war in Iraq to inflate spending? What causes deficits first and foremost are recessions.

Ooh Neocons! Please throw in Blackwater, Halliburton and "torture" while you are at it.

Yeah, you are right it wasn't Clinton that signed a resolution that called for the overthrow of Saddam...

The Clinton administration repeatedly and emphatically portrayed Saddam as a threat in language would make your Neocon's blush.

President Clinton himself, defending intensified U.S. air strikes against Iraq military targets, in 1998 declared "the actual use of force" the "surest way to contain Saddam Hussein’s WMD program."

President would often ask what is the consequence of failing to take action against Saddam’s defiance of United Nations resolutions condemning his oppressive regime and refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors? Clinton’s answer:"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use that arsenal."

This point became something of a Clinton refrain. "Mark my words," he said on another occasion. "He will develop WMD.He will deploy them, and he will use them."

Vice President Al Gore spoke of Saddam. He said the dictator had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons: "He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude."

Other Clinton aides reinforced this message. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger noted that "I am certain he will use that arsenal again," said Berger in 1998.

The Clinton administration’s U.N. ambassador, Bill Richardson, was every bit as dramatic about the Saddam threat."Facts are facts," he said."Iraq has been deceiving the international community with the weaponization of nerve gas.It’s that simple."

Madeleine Albright in 1999 pronounced Iraq "a rogue state" and "the greatest security threat we face."

enlightened and/or geniuses???

because the previous administration drilled it in peoples heads for 2+ years that we cant just pull out ina disorderly fashion and people have accepted that and are giving Obama until Bush's proposed timetable.

if we're still in Iraq after that I expect a ****storm of biblical proportions

This is pretty much the exact opposite of my experience in the liberal midwest. B

people who are libertarians, are in the least, not evil tyrants. so i give them that right off the bat.

so they and Obama are morons??? I dont understand this line of argument Iron .. I know your trying to support Obama I just dont know how.

LOL you guys are killing me!

How did this become the Clinton love thread?? The only reason that clown looks good is by comparison to his slightly less articulate redneck brother that came after him. They are two peas in a pod. Hell at least with W you could count on him not lying maybe 20% of the time, Bill lies just for fun to see if he can trick people. Apparently that works, because he fooled you rubes into thinking he was more that a slimy scum sucking peice of garbage that I wouldnt buy a used car from.

FYP

Bull****. You didn't see any Clinton love from me. He was wildly responsible, and it was his CIA that dropped the ball before Bush, and then didn't man-up and counter Cheney's independent WHIGs initiative when they knew it was bunk.

No one is defending goofy Bill Clinton here, so you can dispense with that crap straight away. Thanks.

POTY

neblis 4 king imo

LDO .... I will be quoting that endorsement .. thank you my favorite king

FWIW I've endorsed about 15 people already.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you said your piece now stfu

bahahah

wow, people simulataneously attacking obama for being in iraq/afghanistan while defending bush's actions ITT

lol really, which posts?

I agree w/ this, we shouldn't have been in there in teh first place, and our piece of **** current president should have pulled everyone out like he said he was going to

I don't think Obama said he was going to do that, that's just what all the Obamatrons (lmao, yesss!) wanted to believe. Wishful thinking.

Really? honestly, I didnt follow his campaign closely enough because I assumed hillary was going to be in. and I also assumed by what everyone said that he said he was going to end the war quickly etc....should bhave payed closer attention

Hilariously, I did a project a year ago and found that half the people that voted for McCain in one primary did so because they thought he was anti-war. Because he was a veteran, they were like "lol he doesn't support war obv!"

Are you really making an argument that takes 1 google search to disprove?

McCain, who argued that a favorable outcome in Iraq is vital for American strategy in the Middle East and its overall efforts against terrorists, repeatedly invoked Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy and would be inclined to give him considerable latitude in setting force levels in Iraq.

At the heart of the dispute is Obama's 16-month schedule for withdrawing American combat brigades, a timetable that is about twice as fast as that provided for in a draft American and Iraqi accord.

Obama might be slower than expected on withdrawing from Iraq, doesn't mean he's not aiming to withdraw.

withdrawing from iraq....and never leaving Afghanistan...apples oranges imo...Im also betting we arent out of iraq during his term, unless he is re-elected

we were talking about Afghanistan, too. Try to keep up.