Chronicle of Hillary Clinton Iraq stance

cawacko said:
Well your Democrats controll Congress i.e. the purse strings and are not doing much about it.
Click to expand...

Umm they still do not have enough of a majority to force things thru like the Republicans did....

those darned Republicans are just using obstructionist fillibustering tacktics. GRIDLOCK!

Ohh sorry got carried away, that only happens when Dems do it....
 
uscitizen said:
Umm they still do not have enough of a majority to force things thru like the Republicans did....

those darned Republicans are just using obstructionist fillibustering tacktics. GRIDLOCK!

Ohh sorry got carried away, that only happens when Dems do it....
Click to expand...

Can you show me when the Republicans had 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster?
 
Damocles said:
We need a leader in the WH, not a follower.
Click to expand...


Well, that precludes every Republican that is running. Not that I am conceding that she is a follower, but at least Clinton has the wisdom to realize that she was wrong and can adapt to changing circumstances. Nothing I see from any single Republican that is running leads me to conclude that they would be a "leader" or any sort whatsoever. Rather, all I see are a bunch of "lemmings."
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that precludes every Republican that is running. Not that I am conceding that she is a follower, but at least Clinton has the wisdom to realize that she was wrong and can adapt to changing circumstances. Nothing I see from any single Republican that is running leads me to conclude that they would be a "leader" or any sort whatsoever. Rather, all I see are a bunch of "lemmings."
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity has there ever been a Republican that you believe has been a leader?
 
cawacko said:
Out of curiousity has there ever been a Republican that you believe has been a leader?
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, can you point out where there is a shimmer of daylight between any single real Republican candidate (this precludes RonPaul (yes I realize it is two words but it's kinda like AlGore)) and the Bush Administration on Iraq?

I'm merely speaking the truth on this one.

Anyway, you would have to narrow your question to specific issues as far as Republicans being leaders. Bush hasn't led the country in a single positive direction since at least early 2002. I suppose the fellow at the state department, the guy in charge of far east affairs i believe it is, is a leader. He got a decent deal with the North Koreans on the nuclear issue. Of course we're no better or than under the Clinton Agreed Framework and in some real substantive ways we are worse off, but it took leadership to get done what he got done, particularly in the face of the Cheneyists in charge. I'm not sure his political affiliation, but he is certainly a leader.
 
Dungheap said:
Out of curiosity, can you point out where there is a shimmer of daylight between any single real Republican candidate (this precludes RonPaul (yes I realize it is two words but it's kinda like AlGore)) and the Bush Administration on Iraq?

I'm merely speaking the truth on this one.

Anyway, you would have to narrow your question to specific issues as far as Republicans being leaders. Bush hasn't led the country in a single positive direction since at least early 2002. I suppose the fellow at the state department, the guy in charge of far east affairs i believe it is, is a leader. He got a decent deal with the North Koreans on the nuclear issue. Of course we're no better or than under the Clinton Agreed Framework and in some real substantive ways we are worse off, but it took leadership to get done what he got done, particularly in the face of the Cheneyists in charge. I'm not sure his political affiliation, but he is certainly a leader.
Click to expand...

I guess I was thinking prior to this administration.
 
Strictly limited to foreign policy:

Nixon was a leader when he went to China.

Reagan was a leader when he helped to win the Cold War.

Bush, Sr. was a leader when he tried to establish the new world order of global cooperation and worked to promote democracy in the former Soviet States instead of listening to Dick Cheney and invading the fuckers.

Bush, Jr. was a leader when . . . he fucked everything up and turned the greatest international outpouring of support for the United States into the greatest hatred for the United States. Sure he led, but, as I said, not in a positive direction.
 
Ohh so no one ever followed bush ? I guess since it pretty much ended about 1 year ago it never happened ?
And many of the repubs in congress and about 1/3 of the people in the US are still following the fool...He is still "leading" but not leading as many.
My 2 senators still devoutly follow Bush....
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh so no one ever followed bush ? I guess since it pretty much ended about 1 year ago it never happened ?
And many of the repubs in congress and about 1/3 of the people in the US are still following the fool...He is still "leading" but not leading as many.
My 2 senators still devoutly follow Bush....
Click to expand...
When did I say "none ever have"?

You are now strawman arguing. At least read the thread before you keep rearguing other people's points that have already been answered in this thread.

Once again, we have already covered this. Keep up.

People can seem to be "leading" when their actions are popular. A leader will be able to gain support for an unpopular or more difficult path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top