KelliJ

No, we are not the world police. But we are the biggest kid on the block. To stand by and do nothing to protect those who can't protect themselves is no less evil than harming them ourselves. Bush and Clinton included.

Your (1) and (2) were what I was looking for, among other examples. Just those two alone would equal any civilian deaths attributed to Bush's actions in Iraq. It is a remarkable, yet sad, fact that the choices our President makes can mean life or death for so many innocent people. As shown by these examples inaction can kill just as many as action.

Hmmmm...interesting manner of debate. One side is big, so it MUST be bigger than the other. Since it was you who made the claim it is up to you to show the data, not me. Do you always make claims without having any idea what the facts are?

Just leave the ball, ok? Please?

Yes, that is a fact. I posted a link showing the 1.3 million Iraqi death's from Bush's war previously in this thread. Since the war in Iraq has proven to be a HUGE mistake, and Colin Powell went on record in 2001 claiming that Iraq posed no significant threat to her neighbors, it's tough to blame those deaths on Clinton. Ok, that's the figures you are attributing to Bush. Now, to back up your claim, you must present figures of civilian deaths attributed to Clinton's actions (or inaction). Still waiting.

Sorry, but if you want to play silly games of semantics you'll have to find someone else.

Many, many more civilians have needlessly died from Bush's actions than from Clinton's. I don't consider an American life any more valuable than a life of any other nation. Is that a fact? I'd like to see some statistics to back up that claim, if you don't mind. Be sure to include those who died because Clinton refused to take action when he could have or should have. I'll wait.

U.S. soldiers are U.S. citizens. Why would you say otherwise? They are not, however, civilians. Yes, it is a good thing Iraq had no WMDs. In case you haven't heard, none were found.

According to former President Clinton, if you thought the 60s were great for the U.S. you are probably a liberal. If you thought they were bad times for the U.S. you are probably a conservative. If you agree with Clinton in this you are probably a liberal. If you think Clinton is full of doo-doo then you are probably a conservative.

Also, don't forget the primary intent was to stop terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens. I believe that has been accomplished.

Ask yourself two questions. How many terrorist attacks against the U.S outside Afghanistan and Iraq under Clintons watch? How many under Bush? The answer is pretty clear.

With all of Bush's action, why haven't we found and captured bin Laden with Bush at the helm? Not as easy as many people think. Josef Mengele hid from the entire world for almost 35 years and wasn't found until after he died. Besides, Bush is an idiot...remember?

I must be confused by what you are comparing when you say "what actually happened sucked a whole lot more" I was under the impression you were saying something could have sucked a whole lot more than Bush going after OBL. I disagree on what Gore's reaction would have been. After watching him follow Clinton's lead for 8 years I don't feel he would have done anything other than proclaim a promise to catch those responsible. As for him being a hawk, yes. But talk is one thing, action is another.

That's putting a lot of faith in Bush's abilities to say he would have stopped the attacks had he taken a shorter vacation. In actuality, and you should know this, when a President takes a "vacation" it is a working vacation. They are given the same briefings, have the same resources, and can do the same things they could if sitting in the Oval Office. "What actually _happened_ sucked a whole lot more." That's a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that what Bush did in going after OBL in Afghanistan was the right move. I also feel Gore would have done the same as Clinton...nothing. That would have only emboldened the terrorists even more and it's anyone's guess what they would have done next.

That's funny! The planning was started well in advance of the attacks while Clinton was still in office.

Interesting point of view even if one sided. I tend to disagree, though.

You can credit him for whatever your heart desires.

Does that include the stock market reaching all-time highs? And interest rates being at all-time lows? And unemployment being at 20 year lows? You can also credit those of us who voted for Bush for helping to avoid what would have happened to this country had Gore and Kerry been elected. Bush isn't perfect, far from it. But anyone who is waiting for the perfect candidate is in for a long, long wait.

Bush is a moron. (Let's make that "idiot". I know a few morons and they are really nice people )Not many will argue that point. I voted for him twice, both times to keep who I considered the bigger idiot out of office. I don't regret either vote. And I'm not a moron (or an idiot) so that proves you wrong.

I'm sure some of them couldn't. I'm sure some of them have no problem getting laid.

Such a shame that local politicians can try to ruin a retail outlet in that manner. They should go after the people who misuse the guns, not the people who sell them legally. I've been into a couple of their stores and found it to be an enjoyable shopping experience. But I do wonder just how much of an impact loss of firearm sales would be to them since it seems guns make up a small portion of what they offer. Just a thought. Maybe someone has some statistics on that?

Being a Rhodes Scholar and being a buffoon are not mutually exclusive. Being awarded a Rhodes merely shows the person is an exceptional student, nothing more. It reveals little about character, integrity, trustworthiness, cooking and driving skills, health, or mental age. Former President Clinton is a good example. Though he was a Rhodes Scholar he allowed himself to make many bad decisions in his personal life that tarnished what could have been a respectable presidency. Some of those decisions leave even people of less than average IQ scratching their heads saying, "What the Hell was he thinking??".

My point exactly except that I have no problem with tasers being used in situations where the officers has to use force and would be at substantial risk of injury to himself or the suspect if he must try to physically overpower someone. This includes instances where the officer has every reason to believe the suspect has a weapon.

Hmmm - and a bunch of SKYDIVERS are supposed to find that indicative of a problem? I think not.

I HAVE been a policeman, and I think YOU are wrong. Wrong about being an armchair policeman is safe and easy, or wrong about doing it for real is neither safe nor easy?