David Kay now confirms that Saddam disarmed while Bill Clinton and the Democrats were containing Iraq during the 1990s. U.S. weapons inspectors in Iraq found new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, former chief inspector David Kay said yesterday.

The discovery means that inspectors have not only failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but also have found exculpatory information -- contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis -- demonstrating that Hussein did make efforts to disarm well before President Bush began making the case for war
(Full text here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54353-2004Jan27.html?nav=hptop_ts)) One of the best ways for Democrats to challenge Bush on Iraq is to point out that the lack of WMDs in Iraq shows that the patient, tough policy of containment succeeded in disarming Saddam while boosting America’s status around the world and preventing Iraq from becoming a threat to the United States. In contrast, the reckless, impatient policies of our current administration are costing us more than a boy a day while decreasing America’s homeland security and shredding American global prestige, all so that Bush can garner headlines, upstage his father, and film political ads on aircraft carriers.

The bottom line? Bush is too impatient, too immature, and simply not tough enough to protect the United States the way the Democrats did during the 1990s.

:m: Peace.

The Democrats could show so much to the American people, consider the economic boom years, the budget surplus, the 30 million or so jobs created, American respect overseas, and a tolerant, and multilateralist administration in Washington. Fiscal responsibility and sustaining a modern military. What must be remembered is that the war in Iraq was "won" by the Clintonian military, not that of the Bush administration.

Compare that to today, inept international policy, pointless but hurtful rhetoric ("Axis of Evil, Permission slips"). Budgetary whoredom, about $500 billion budget deficit expected by the white house this year, international apathy to American causes, and American concerns, the Arab street hating more virulently then ever, $4 billion a month in Iraq, a soldier a day, pseudo- WMD destruction threats, lying, and manipulation.

So America what will it be? Peace or Pax Americana?

Yes, look at what Clinton left for Bush when Clinton left the White House. He left a big problem with foriegn affairs in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as we all learned about after Sept 11 2001.

Clinton inheirted all those problems from the Reagan/Bush era... point?

Yes, look at what Clinton left for Bush when Clinton left the White House. He left a big problem with foriegn affairs in the Middle East, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan as we all learned about after Sept 11 2001.

Clinton didn't leave those problems, Bush created them.

So then why didn't the great Clinton fix the problems during his 8 years in office? No, he wanted to screw his private suckretary and play games with his friends that were released from prison.

So then why didn't the great Clinton fix the problems during his 8 years in office? No, he wanted to screw his private suckretary and play games with his friends that were released from prison.

now your just talking nonsense

I talk nonsense? What did Clinton do to resolve the Iraq, Afghanistan Iran and Middle East problem? I'm waitng for this, for you can't give anything as to his resolving any of those problems.

I talk nonsense? What did Clinton do to resolve the Iraq, Afghanistan Iran and Middle East problem? I'm waitng for this, for you can't give anything as to his resolving any of those problems.

everyone acts like clinton didnt do anything but philander. clinton was of the most active presidents in recent times. there is no way clinton could have been as aggressive as bush in foreign policies. 911 basically gave bush a blank check to do whatever he wanted throughout his entire presidency and what did he do with it. he basically f*cked up any good relations the US had in the entire world . the entire world is suspicious any action the US takes, for good reason. as far as bush solving any problems, i have not seen any solutions. every problem has been exacerbated. iraq is on the verge of civil war, the middle east problem is worse than ever, and afghanistan is in shambles. and bush has blown any good will the world would offer to the US. he by no means reduced the amount of terrorists. social instability is a breeding ground terrorism. it s good thing bush increased that in the middle east. WOOT

Clinton didn't leave those problems, Bush created them.

How on earth did George Bush create those problems?

everyone acts like clinton didnt do anything but philander. clinton was of the most active presidents in recent times. there is no way clinton could have been as aggressive as bush in foreign policies.

So how did Bill Clinton solve those problems?

So America what will it be? Peace or Pax Americana?

America's problems won't be solved by electing a Democrat. We need a third party candidate.

America's problems won't be solved by electing a Democrat. We need a third party candidate.

i didnt claim that clinton solved the problems. im pretty just stating that the other point made about clinton is moot. when it comes down to it, i dont think these problems can be solved without some fundamental change in how people think

America's problems won't be solved by electing a Democrat. We need a third party candidate.

i fully agree with this point

There's no 3rd party candidate that would be accapted for the position of president by a majority of the people and the electorial college. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote, IMO. The Demos and Repubs run the circus and will continue to do so until something drastic happens. So if you want a change , you be that change for you are the only thing that can actually change.

Say buddy... can ya spare some change? ;)

America's problems won't be solved by electing a Democrat. We need a third party candidate.

America is barely a democracy, two parties is simply not a choice it's forced. I don't blame the parties per se, I blame the American people for not seeing the other possible alternatives. But one thing is for sure, two parties have created political stability. What ever happened to the Wig party? or is it Whig?

Whigs were reactionaries against Andrew Jackson.The rise of the Republican and the anti-immigrant Know-Nothing parties completed the Whig downfall. Defections to Republicanism were numerous, while the former Whig president, Fillmore, accepted the Know-Nothing nomination. A Whig national convention met in 1856, but simply endorsed the Fillmore ticket. Thus the party of Unionism came to an end, a victim of sectional controversy. (Encyclopedia Americana (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/whig.html))You're right in looking to the people, but we do need to continuously blame the parties, as well. Do the folks who sat around and watched the Genovese murder somehow excuse the actuall killer?

Nah. But pause and look at the difference between your average Democratic voter and the DNC.

• The parties are out of touch with the voters, and must answer.
• By necessity, apathy, or otherwise, voters are out of touch with voting.
• Government being for the benefit of the people, the parties aspiring to govern ought to be obliged to the people's benefit. Unfortunately ....

Anyway, two cents.

America is barely a democracy, two parties is simply not a choice it's forced.

America never was a Democracy. It's a representative republic. Democracy is mob role, which means that it is crap.

And I would be hesitant to say that the two party system isn't a choice. We don't have to vote for Democrats and Republicans, but many people do because they have convinced themselves or have been convinced by others that voting for anyone else is "wasting your vote". Basically, we've been tricked into not exercising our choices.

I don't blame the parties per se, I blame the American people for not seeing the other possible alternatives.

I agree.

But one thing is for sure, two parties have created political stability.

Stalin and Mao created political stability. But seriously, if this is stability then stability is vastly overrated.

What ever happened to the Wig party? or is it Whig?

The American Whig Party went away during the mid-nineteenth century.

America never was a Democracy. It's a representative republic. Democracy is mob role, which means that it is crap.


And in order to be representative you need democracy. Democratic rule is not mob rule that is more for anarchism. Democracy entails may faucets of "rule by the people". As long as people vote it can be classified as a democracy.

Stalin and Mao created political stability. But seriously, if this is stability then stability is vastly overrated.


There simply is no comparison, try again.

And in order to be representative you need democracy.

Voting for someone who will then "represent" you by doing whatever he or she wants regardless of how you feel about it isn't the same thing as a pure democracy.

Democratic rule is not mob rule that is more for anarchism. Democracy entails may faucets of "rule by the people".

It's "rule by whatever mob is the biggest". A pure democracy is just anarchy with a few formalities.

As long as people vote it can be classified as a democracy.

As long as the person/party that has the most people screaming for it is running our lives it can be classified as mob rule.

There simply is no comparison, try again.

Stability is stability, for better or for worse.

How on earth did George Bush create those problems?

Mr. "Dubya" created those problems by starting his presidency with an agenda of meddling in the Middle East. Just like his father.

This may come as a huge surprise, but people in the Middle East hated one another long before Clinton or either of the Bush's were involved in presidential politics.

Voting for someone who will then "represent" you by doing whatever he or she wants regardless of how you feel about it isn't the same thing as a pure democracy.

But that doesn't happen either; the whole purpose of a representative democracy is for the representative to listen to her constituent’s then vote on x law. I don't know about you, but that is how representative democracy works.

It's "rule by whatever mob is the biggest". A pure democracy is just anarchy with a few formalities.

Wouldn't "pure democracy" be the former not the latter?

As long as the person/party that has the most people screaming for it is running our lives it can be classified as mob rule.

Ok, I hate democracy personally but what system can be offered that is better? To me Platonism, but that's a different story.

Stability is stability, for better or for worse.

Well Mao was not "stability" needless to mention the Cultural Revolution; I'll leave it at that. There is no such thing as stability, especially in a comparison btwn "Communist"-Democratic systems, because to both stability means two totally different things.