Why not? Its not like you guys are counting the attacks on American military forces under Bush now is it?

Nor are you counting attacks on your allies – which pardon me for noticing, seem to be having a far more detrimental effect on America’s international power then all of the bombings under Clinton. Nobody cancelled any alliances with America over the USS Cole bombing.

As to Reagan? Reagan had about as much to do with the fall of the wall as he had to do with the success or failure of any American sports team during his reign – the fall of the wall actually came due to the USSR’s poor economic policies (Including its policy of blaming the previous administration and thus, avoiding having to do anything about current problems) and an error made by a government official in Eastern Germany, not because of anything that famous champion of Apartheid Reagan said or did.

Advocating tazing and beatings against anti-war demonstrators? Seriously?

VIDEO –
FOX & Friends: Code Pink People Should Be Tazered, Beaten
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=18e5cf09-afd0-4975-b04b-2c6e7e488a36

Sorry, we’re too intelligent here to 1) watch Chris Farley movies and then 2) use them as props in a political discussion.

Now, again, shut your pie hole.

Hmmm. sounds like the deserter Bush and 5-deferment Dickhead (I had better things to do) Cheney to me.

You are truly a sick delusional person, seek some medical help. It will require you to leave your mother’s basement, but you can do it.

Once under GWB’s stewardship was enough – now shut your pie hole.

HA HA HA HA HA. Yes, and he did it ALL in 4 seconds just by telling Gorbachev to tear down that wall! And he bare-knuckle-beat-up the rest of those Commies and turned the Gulags into Russian Disneylandskis … all with good old fashioned Amuhrucan fisticuffs! Amazing! Such a superhero!

“I really don’t even think about him(Osama been Forgotten).”-George W. Bush.

How many times has al Qaeda hit America since 9/11?

About as many times as it hit America between the first WTC bombing and Bush coming into power – if you hold both presidents to the same standard of only counting attacks on the mainland.

Otherwise there are a whole host of attacks on your allies which one can name, including the first ever Islamic terror attacks on Britain, those attacks on the Spannish that got them out of the war, and hey, lets not even mention what terrorism is doing to places like Pakistan shall we?

First, Wilson’s backwards looking platform very strongly implied a promise to continue to keep America out of WWI, and second:

FDR’s position was instrumental to America winning that war. If he had quit, it would have hurt America’s chances of winning.

Oh, and as to claiming that Bush’s blame laying on Clinton was appropriate, well lets see, who else believed in that? Oh yeah, the Soviet Union. Really worked for them now didn’t it?

And Georgie has improved upon this how? Even with the added impetus from 9-11?

No contradiction? Really? Then can you explain how a non-existant strike can be feeble?

I can’t say that because that would be lying. I misread what you wrote .

As to claiming that FDR was a chickenhawk?

He supported a president whose campaign promise was to keep America out of WWI. As to his support or opposition to WWI, you haven’t demonstrated it one way or the other, but as assistant secretary to the navy (and a good one by all reports) his position was actively involved in the war, positively contributed to it and for him to have resigned to go fight in the war would have hurt America’s efforts in the war.

I do not see how you can claim that FDR was by anybody’s definition a chickenhawk.

The CIA and Michael Scheuer (who headed up the CIA’s bin Laden unit) say that Clinton gave no orders to assassinate bin Laden. Clinton launched no preemptive strikes on al Qaeda. The strike was a weak and ineffective response to our embassies being bombed in Africa in 1998.

Dude, you can’t even keep your lies straight? I mean, you can’t even go one paragraph without contradicting yourself here?

What, are you really that stupid?

Clinton authorised military action, but he was not a warlike president and he did not engage in wars frivolously, the way Bush, a warlike president, has.

You can be in favour of a war, while ducked out of a war you weren’t in favour of, without being a chickenhawk, but if you favour that past war as conservative commentators do with Vietnam (Including Bush) while having ducked out of combat in that war yourself, you are already two steps towards being a chickenhawk.

The final step, comes when you declare those who outright opposed that war as being less patriotic, less courageous or somehow worse people then you for opposing that war.

Bush is a chickenhawk because he used his connections to get a cushy job at the national guard rather then serve in a war he agreed with. Limbaugh’s the same, so are a huge number of conservatives who go on about pinko liberal peaceniks and the dirty hippies.

Mitt Romney, currently in the running for the Republican nomination, is a classic chickenhawk not simply because of his stance on Iraq, but on his stance on Vietnam, a war he approved of, and which he purposely avoided.

For a full illustration of chickenhawks watch this: http://www.vimeo.com/244640

You either didn’t watch the same cartoons, or you were not present when Manslagt’s hysterical parents spouted this b.s. when he was a wee one.