Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP5";p="
There ya go! You're already telling us you would have supported Clinton.
|
Er, no I didn't. I said he gets the benefit of the doubt. |
But not from you???
Who then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
[If Bush came out and said we needed to tax the rich, he'd get the benefit of the doubt because that's an against-the-grain position for him. If Clinton said we needed to tax the rich, he wouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt.
Quote:
|
No, you wouldn't. You would have just said he wasn't doing any of that.
|
Well if you're going to script both sides of the conversation, what am I doing here?
You asked the question. Accept the answer or call me a liar. |
I'm not intending to call you a liar. I'm reading what you said and expecting further explanation. What you're saying is......a Republican president could never have the benefit of the doubt on going to war because, well, he's a Republican. But a Democrat can???
Doesn't even make sense. Especially when you consider Clinton and other Dems were quite "hawkish" during his administration. And when he said we need to bomb Yugoslavia when they were absolutely no threat to us OR our national security.....Democrats supported him anyway.
When Clinton said....Saddam was a threat that needed to be dealt with.....you believed and supported him. And had he invaded Iraq, you would have been 100% behind him. I have no doubt. That's my opinio of most Dems anyway.