Obvious tag on it's knees under the desk.

It helps that he isn't running for office anymore either.

brainiac-dumdum: It helps that he isn't running for office anymore either.

Even if he were, I wouldn't trust him to actually have changed his mind. Not after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Bill Clinton would do or say anything for a vote.

Benevolent Misanthrope: brainiac-dumdum: It helps that he isn't running for office anymore either.

Even if he were, I wouldn't trust him to actually have changed his mind. Not after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Bill Clinton would do or say anything for a vote.

Maybe when Hillary runs in 2016 it will be legal so they won't have to dance around the issue anymore.

while Bush joked that when he walks Barney now, he gets to pick up "that which I had dodged for eight years."

No, the difference is the last eight years, you were the one dropping the shiat, Mr. President.

On another note, nice to see Clinton becoming more tolerant towards gay rights. The Democratic Party really is becoming what the GOP should have been. Politically moderate, economically liberal (they never did slow down spending, might as well spend it on Americans) and embracing more personal freedom on the social front.

Presidents Bush, Clinton Team Up in Toronto; Clinton Says His View on Gay Marriage Is 'Evolving'

...and Bush says his view on evolution is gay, so it kinda evens out.

President Bush...bristled at the suggestion -- advanced by President Obama, among others -- that Iraq distracted the nation from the war in Afghanistan

Farking. Idiot.

brainiac-dumdum: Maybe when Hillary runs comes out of the closet in 2016 it will be legal so they won't have to dance around the issue anymore.

NTTAWT...

GAT_00: while Bush joked that when he walks Barney now, he gets to pick up "that which I had dodged for eight years."

No, the difference is the last eight years, you were the one dropping the shiat, Mr. President.




really it seems to come out their mouths most of the time, I've often wondered if they shiat good ideas and flush them.

Well isn't that nice he all for gay rights now that he has no power to do anything about it. I mean it not like he's the one that signed DOMA or DADT...oh wait.

Bill Clinton's views on gay marriage evolving, especially when it involves two chicks

Well, doesn't everyone's?

TFA: Clinton also expressed optimism that the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" -- which he helped enact erect -- will eventually come off the books, allowing gay members of the armed services to serve openly.

That's how I read it the first time.

/Then I went, "No, that can't be right."
//but neither is DADT

President Bush...bristled at the suggestion -- advanced by President Obama, among others -- that Iraq distracted the nation from the war in Afghanistan



Lionel Mandrake: Farking. Idiot.


He was there, were you?

Iraq was/is strategically very significant.

Bill Clinton's views on gay marriage evolving, especially when it involves two chicks


Munchausen's Proxy: Well, doesn't everyone's?



Sure, but only on a case by case basis... NTTAWWT



/image is hot... like an exhaust pipe

Phil Herup: Bill Clinton's views on gay marriage evolving, especially when it involves two chicks


Munchausen's Proxy: Well, doesn't everyone's?



Sure, but only on a case by case basis... NTTAWWT



/image is hot... like an exhaust pipe

good lord I'm a lesbo and even I find that scary

Phil Herup: Bill Clinton's views on gay marriage evolving, especially when it involves two chicks


Munchausen's Proxy: Well, doesn't everyone's?



Sure, but only on a case by case basis... NTTAWWT



/image is hot... like an exhaust pipe


...ugly's ugly, and some of those boys are scary.

CFTA, "Woody McBreairty":

Let's see, "Bring 'em on!"
"Mission Accomplished!"
"We'll get him, dead or alive."
Clinton is just indulging in his need for the limelight and more money, but I can't believe that people would actually pay to see the moronic George W. who was installed by the supremes and made a mess of our country that almost drove it beyond repair, indeed damaged the world. I'm sure he will go down in history as the most awful, destructive and horrible president in history. He is a genuine American tragedy.

le smaque

Phil Herup: He was there, were you?

Iraq was/is strategically very significant.

Actually, because I'm not a child, I was there, too. It was completely a distraction. It was a well-appointed, attractive distraction which I fell for , too, but a distraction, nonetheless. The Iraq War is only strategic in two ways: 1)oil and 2)it has created one of the strongest cases for anti-Americanism in the Middle East in the history of this country, and thus a strong recruiting tool for groups like Al-Qaeda.

mcwebe0: Phil Herup: He was there, were you?

Iraq was/is strategically very significant.

Actually, because I'm not a child, I was there, too. It was completely a distraction. It was a well-appointed, attractive distraction which I fell for , too, but a distraction, nonetheless. The Iraq War is only strategic in two ways: 1)oil and 2)it has created one of the strongest cases for anti-Americanism in the Middle East in the history of this country, and thus a strong recruiting tool for groups like Al-Qaeda.

Very nice. It never gets old seeing Phil and his League of Fail get smacked around.

Oh, and thank you for your service!

mcwebe0: Actually, because I'm not a child, I was there, too.


You were in the Oval Office and meetings with the Joint Chiefs? Those men all agreed it was as you say?


Stop bringing the tired and weak argument about it as recruiting tool as well. That appears to be the default blaaarrgggabbbl now from the left.

Iraq is more than just oil, it was and it still is a strategic necessity for the whole region.

Stability of energy supply, staging points for future campaigns and helping to also keep a close eye on Iran.

You can keep calling it just a distraction and a recruitment tool while you drink your Kool Aid, but it does not make you correct at all.

Tor_Eckman: Very nice. It never gets old seeing Phil and his League of Fail get smacked around.


This coming from Nancy Pelosi's chief torch carrier and defender.

"Evolving" is the operative word.

the republicans already have all the answers so they don't need to evolve any more.

Bill Clinton will marry the cup.

Tor_Eckman: Oh, and thank you for your service!

Not "there" in the military sense. Just present in the US for the discussion. Sorry for the ambiguity.

Phil Herup: You were in the Oval Office and meetings with the Joint Chiefs? Those men all agreed it was as you say?

No, I obviously wasn't. I was in a National Security Policy class taught by a former liason between the Dept. of State and the WH Press Secretary. I was assigned a paper on the impending conflict in Iraq (this was fall 2002). I wrote that, based on the intelligence discussed in periodicals like Foreign Policy, it seemed that Iraq would imminently develop WMDs within five years and that, because of Saddam Hussein's history of making risky gambles, this would be a destabilizing presence in the region as he attempted to establish a regional hegemony. I further articulated the risk of removing the strong leader that provides a certain amount of cohesion: namely that it might lead to sectarian violence.

As I said, I bought it hook line and sinker. There was, however, never a credible connection to Al-Qaeda. No. Never. The real target was Al-Qaeda and bin-Laden and Iraq was simply a distraction from that. It may have seemed like a good thing at the time, but it was still a distraction from the enemy who had actually attacked us.

Stop bringing the tired and weak argument about it as recruiting tool as well. That appears to be the default blaaarrgggabbbl now from the left.

I'm sorry that the truth is uncomfortable for you. The sad fact is that recruiting for extremist groups is up since we invaded Iraq, especially since the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. Both the invasion in general and Abu Ghraib in particular merely reinforced the messages of American depravity which are the bread and butter of extremist recruiters.

Iraq is more than just oil, it was and it still is a strategic necessity for the whole region.

Stability of energy supply, staging points for future campaigns and helping to also keep a close eye on Iran.

Protip: When arguing that Iraq is not about oil, do not lead off the following paragraph with the phrase: "Stability of energy supply." In the Middle East, that means "oil". As for staging points for future campaigns, what future campaigns, are we planning on conquering the whole region? Let's just stay the fark out unless there is a compelling reason to be there. We can cultivate alliances to provide staging areas if necessary.

You can keep calling it just a distraction and a recruitment tool while you drink your Kool Aid, but it does not make you correct at all.

You can keep calling it an essential battle in the War on Terror^TM all you want while you drink your Kool Aid, but it does not make you correct either. I sympathize with people who were pro-Iraq War back in the day. I was one of us. That doesn't change the fact that the clarity of hindsight reveals this entire operation as nothing but a distraction from Al-Qaeda, not just because there were no WMDs, but because the enemy who attacked us was never Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party. It was Osama bin-Laden and Al-Qaeda and they were never anywhere near Iraq.

/do not want!!
//ironically, image is hot

mcwebe0: Protip: When arguing that Iraq is not about oil, do not lead off the following paragraph with the phrase: "Stability of energy supply." In the Middle East, that means "oil". As for staging points for future campaigns, what future campaigns, are we planning on conquering the whole region? Let's just stay the fark out unless there is a compelling reason to be there. We can cultivate alliances to provide staging areas if necessary.



I appreciate your answer. I guess we will agree to diasgree on this as do many. We are there now and we are not leaving.

What future campagns? I don't know, they are in the future and always in motion the future is.

Better to be there and not need to be, than to need to be there and not be.

Iran and the oil had moar to do with Iraq's invasion than OBL, and I do not recall OBL being used as a reason to go there.

Saddam had every opportunity to ensure that an invasion did not happen. He chose the wrong option.


It may take decades to see the benefit of having a major foothold in that region, but in the big picture it will be better that we are there rather than say China or Russia. As teh energy supply becomes more and more scarce, things will change.

Phil Herup:

I appreciate your answer. I guess we will agree to diasgree on this as do many. We are there now and we are not leaving.

What future campagns? I don't know, they are in the future and always in motion the future is. Better to be there and not need to be, than to need to be there and not be.

The current US policy in Iraq is almost certainly doing the best from a bad situation

But I can't see the Joint Chiefs going along with any further expansion into any other middle-east countries in future for any reason - other than maybe if the Saudis turned off their taps. But nobody thinks that's ever going to happen.

People talk about the negative political impact of the last six years' campaigning, on America's reputation with the Muslim man-on-the-street. But that's repairable.

What it's really shown is the LIMIT of America's military power. Invading and pacifying Iraq came within an inch of being beyond the capability of the mighty US military. And Iraq is NOT a large or populous country. Opponents of US-friendly governments around the world will have taken note. If the Pakistani authorities can't sort out their problems themselves, the US couldn't do much even if you weren't bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody's very frightened of the US any more. The US Empire has been proven to have over-reached and over-stretched.

Don't think it gives me any pleasure to point it out.

opiumpoopy: Nobody's very frightened of the US any more. The US Empire has been proven to have over-reached and over-stretched.

I seem to remember some pearl of wisdom about our military being capable of waging two-and-a-half wars simultaneously. If you count all of our miscellaneous obligations to policing actions as a half of a war (Korea mostly, I guess), we seem to have hit the limit as expected. Either that, or after cutting military funding since the end of the Cold War, it's down to two-and-a-quarter wars.

Munchausen's Proxy: Bill Clinton's views on gay marriage evolving, especially when it involves two chicks

Well, doesn't everyone's?

Which raises an interesting question (as I try to draw the thread back to the topic): How many anti-gay marriage men view lesbian porn?

desertgeek: How many anti-gay marriage men view lesbian porn?



one... two... THREE!! FAP FAP FAP .. THRRRRREEEEEE!

Three licks to get to the center of your lesbian porn question.

So his views have evolved from backwards to pedestrian?