US/British/Russian intelligence all said there *was* WMD in Iraq--
9/11 Commission-Senate Intelligence Committee-Lord Butlers investigation--all concluded Bush did not lie
Kerry and Edwards-- who had the same intelligence reports Bush did-- voted for the war....
so how in the hell is just Bush made out to be the liar????
i asked this two weeks ago--and i noticed it was not answered-- why is Kerry and Edwards being absolved but Bush is being villified for it???
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Boy
By his declaration of war (and if you know your history, dear the Prez needs no congressional approval to declare war, no matter how futile!)
Kriz ;o)
Apparently, you don't know your "history." (Shouldn't it be US law? Or, at the very least political science?) Anyway, only CONGRESS can declare war, not the president who is commander in chief.
And unfortunately, I think the upcoming election is between the evils of two lessers.
"You'd like valid proof? How about the fact that Clinton knew about Osama bin Laden, he watched the first WTC attack unfold, and what did he do? The first WTC attack, that was back by the Iraqis? Nothing."
Clinton was another moron. All he knew about was how to screw interns. And in turn, the people of the US.
"Later, he used NATO for purposes it wasn't intended for to direct the media's attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. What is your opinion on that?"
Again. Moron.
"He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism."
Same answer.
"He was also president when two U.S. embassies were bombed. He was also president when terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole. What did he do? Nothing."
Same answer again.
"Bush, on the other hand, indeed used patrioism. He used patriotism to rally a broken country, to get through a horrendous massacre that could have destroyed another nation. He launched an attack against Afghanistan which is still going on today. Maybe it's not in the news, but we still have men and women there searching for the members of Al-Quaeda. This is something that should have been done long ago."
First of all. The country wasn't broken. Stunned maybe, but broken? I doubt it. Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better thing to talk about being broken. And as for the Afghanistan thing, he tried to blame Bin Laden, anything to get the blame off of him and his cronies. Now that he couldn't kill Bin Laden, he decided to go after Saddam. Still flying the 9-11 flag to do so. There are, and were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspectors say so as well. Would you be foolish enough to believe the CIA and the FBI? They can't find their ass with both hands. Peter Jennings interviewed a high ranking official not too long ago and asked him this. 'So there were no weapons of mass destruction?' the reply was 'No.'
"And Iraq? What about the sarin gas that has been found? That is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. The Iraqis backed both WTC bombings. Saddam was gassing his own people, and you call Bush a murderer? We should have stepped in and taken down Saddam the tyrant ages ago. Now we have him and, hopefully, he'll get what's coming to him."
Sarin gas. Whoopie! Saddam had NO way of getting chemicals here. He barely had enough 'fire power' to launch a rocket to hit Iran. He was NO threat to the US. So he killed his own people. Not a good thing granted, but who is to say what is right or wrong in someone elses country. I don't condone murder in any form (including Capitol Punishment). Bush just wanted a scape goat from the middle east and found one in Saddam since he was too lame to find Bin Laden. So your logic says the USA is 'Big Brother', and can hunt down, and take out whom ever it deems 'bad'. Hell. Lets go after France and Germany then. They didn't back down. They must be tyrants too. They didn't help even when Bush said 'you owe us for WW2'. Bullocks.
Clinton was another moron. All he knew about was how to screw interns. And in turn, the people of the US.
"Later, he used NATO for purposes it wasn't intended for to direct the media's attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. What is your opinion on that?"
Again. Moron.
"He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism."
Same answer.
"He was also president when two U.S. embassies were bombed. He was also president when terrorists blew up the U.S.S. Cole. What did he do? Nothing."
Same answer again.
"Bush, on the other hand, indeed used patrioism. He used patriotism to rally a broken country, to get through a horrendous massacre that could have destroyed another nation. He launched an attack against Afghanistan which is still going on today. Maybe it's not in the news, but we still have men and women there searching for the members of Al-Quaeda. This is something that should have been done long ago."
First of all. The country wasn't broken. Stunned maybe, but broken? I doubt it. Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better thing to talk about being broken. And as for the Afghanistan thing, he tried to blame Bin Laden, anything to get the blame off of him and his cronies. Now that he couldn't kill Bin Laden, he decided to go after Saddam. Still flying the 9-11 flag to do so. There are, and were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspectors say so as well. Would you be foolish enough to believe the CIA and the FBI? They can't find their ass with both hands. Peter Jennings interviewed a high ranking official not too long ago and asked him this. 'So there were no weapons of mass destruction?' the reply was 'No.'
"And Iraq? What about the sarin gas that has been found? That is indeed a weapon of mass destruction. The Iraqis backed both WTC bombings. Saddam was gassing his own people, and you call Bush a murderer? We should have stepped in and taken down Saddam the tyrant ages ago. Now we have him and, hopefully, he'll get what's coming to him."
Sarin gas. Whoopie! Saddam had NO way of getting chemicals here. He barely had enough 'fire power' to launch a rocket to hit Iran. He was NO threat to the US. So he killed his own people. Not a good thing granted, but who is to say what is right or wrong in someone elses country. I don't condone murder in any form (including Capitol Punishment). Bush just wanted a scape goat from the middle east and found one in Saddam since he was too lame to find Bin Laden. So your logic says the USA is 'Big Brother', and can hunt down, and take out whom ever it deems 'bad'. Hell. Lets go after France and Germany then. They didn't back down. They must be tyrants too. They didn't help even when Bush said 'you owe us for WW2'. Bullocks.
Apparently, you don't know your "history." (Shouldn't it be US law? Or, at the very least political science?) Anyway, only CONGRESS can declare war, not the president who is commander in chief.
I do think the point that Krizzy was making is that in the past, even though congress did not declare war, the president still pushed on and fought it (like Desert Storm and (if I'm not mistaken, correct me if I'm wrong) Vietnam), and therefore doesn't REALLY nead congress. (of course, thats against the constitution, but no one respects that nowadays anyhow)
In Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and II, the President needed Congressional authorization to use military force. "Declaring War" is largely a legal term that only Congress can do according to the Constitution. (Vietnam and Korea are often referred to as "Police Actions" in a strictly technical sense.) In Vietnam, for instance, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which allowed President Johnson to escalate the conflict in Vietnam by sending more and more troops. The last time that the United States "declared war" was on December 8, 1941.
"He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism."
George Tenet came highly recommended by the first President Bush, an ex-CIA chief himself. That's one of the reasons that Tenet was one of the few holdovers from Clinton to Bush, Jr. If you truly believe that Tenet screwed up, then both Presidents Clinton and Bush (along with Bush, Sr.) are to blame.
"He also appointed the head of the CIA, who couldn't figure out what was going on enough to stop terrorism."
George Tenet came highly recommended by the first President Bush, an ex-CIA chief himself. That's one of the reasons that Tenet was one of the few holdovers from Clinton to Bush, Jr. If you truly believe that Tenet screwed up, then both Presidents Clinton and Bush (along with Bush, Sr.) are to blame.
lets not forget
the gulf war ended in a cease fire--
WMD or not-- he violated that not once but numerous times--- the end result was through all Saddam's pushing-- Bush ended up pushing back harder.....
the gulf war ended in a cease fire--
WMD or not-- he violated that not once but numerous times--- the end result was through all Saddam's pushing-- Bush ended up pushing back harder.....
Iron Eagle, I must agree with you, my dear!! You hit the nail on the head again! Right on, baby!!!! :-)
Sorry, that's nonsense. Saddam wasn't "pushing" at all. He wa concerned with maintaining his own power and had no practical ambitions against America. Even the new darling of the right, Christopher Hitchens, agrees with that analysis. Or has everyone forgotten about "pre-emption" now that it has gone out of fashion?
First of all. The country wasn't broken. Stunned maybe, but broken? I doubt it. Maybe Pearl Harbor would be a better thing to talk about being broken. And as for the Afghanistan thing, he tried to blame Bin Laden, anything to get the blame off of him and his cronies. Now that he couldn't kill Bin Laden, he decided to go after Saddam. Still flying the 9-11 flag to do so. There are, and were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN weapons inspectors say so as well. Would you be foolish enough to believe the CIA and the FBI? They can't find their ass with both hands. Peter Jennings interviewed a high ranking official not too long ago and asked him this. 'So there were no weapons of mass destruction?' the reply was 'No.'
Pearl Harbor? Break the country? Hell no, it just made it pissed off. 9/11 affected Americans much more deeply than did Pearl Harbor.
Although, Pearl Harbor an was unexpected and unprovoked attack which removed a fleet of battleships. I don't know about you, but when our battleships are destroyed, I am deeply affected...I mean, it's so personal. But luckily, I have this neat little country to lay my wrath upon, afterwards eliminating any threat from that country.
After 9/11, there was no clear cut enemy whom we could do away with a simple exercise of power. It wasn't so basic as an overt attack from a foreign country. Our country has never had to war against a network of enigmatic and surreptitious terrorists before. George W. Bush chose a path...I don't agree that it was the best path, or a good one at that, but it was a logical path to take at the time.
Here's a hypothetical situation: You are the President of the United States of America. A terrorist attack has just been made on two major buildings in one of the country's largest cities. The CIA and British intelligence have concluded that a foreign country is a threat to your country and has been supporting terrorists as the ones who had made the said attack. The entire Congress is pressing for you to go to war. The entire country is pressing for you to go to war. You have the ability and, or so you thought, valid reasons to go to war. What do you do?
THIS country is in the hands of the people, not the President.
P.S. I truly dislike how people think that a single administration can completely ruin the country...and their family, and that their lives are so much worse with Bush in power. Truthfully, if I payed no heed to the government at all, my life would be none the different, and never would be.
he wasnt pushing? he didnt try to get around the cease fire? the UN inspectors??
perhaps i should use a better PC term then???
perhaps i should use a better PC term then???
There are no PC terms to describe what that filth-bag Saddam has been doing.....he is fooling NO ONE.
Also, Bush was pushing too, but at the time, most people wanted him to.
Honestly, if I had the vote, I'd lean towards Kerry, but I have to point out that Bush isn't the evil man who is the sole ruin to our country that everybody makes him out to be.
Honestly, if I had the vote, I'd lean towards Kerry, but I have to point out that Bush isn't the evil man who is the sole ruin to our country that everybody makes him out to be.
So I'm "politically correct" for correcting your revisionist history. Sorry about that...
Yes Saddam was an arsehole doing all the things you say, but he was not a threat to the USA. I assume that's what you mean by "pushing"? Bush's policy of preemption is illegal under international law. Sorry to break that news to you. The truth is, however, that America is a super power that spends more on its military budget than the next 14 nations combined, and therefore doesn't worry too much about "law." You may tell yourself you're a "freedom-loving democracy" but to much of the rest of the world America is behaving exactly as one would expect a lone super power to act. Talking about democracy in Iraq, non-existant WOMD, "pushing" etc is smokescreen and wishful thinking.
Yes Saddam was an arsehole doing all the things you say, but he was not a threat to the USA. I assume that's what you mean by "pushing"? Bush's policy of preemption is illegal under international law. Sorry to break that news to you. The truth is, however, that America is a super power that spends more on its military budget than the next 14 nations combined, and therefore doesn't worry too much about "law." You may tell yourself you're a "freedom-loving democracy" but to much of the rest of the world America is behaving exactly as one would expect a lone super power to act. Talking about democracy in Iraq, non-existant WOMD, "pushing" etc is smokescreen and wishful thinking.
Are you implying that the actions of America are inhibiting freedom and democracy?
When it suits American interests, yes I'm absolutely saying that. Look up American foreign policy behavior in Chile for example. If you don't want to read leftists like Noam Chomsky look up right wing media darling Christopher Hitchens who has written a book about Henry Kissinger (The Trial of Henry Kissinger), which details how the US murdered democratically elected politician Salvador Allende and installed the fascist dictator Pinochet instead. How was that "spreading democracy"?
Or there was that litte incident called the Vietnam War - 4 million dead. But as long as they died democrats then everything's fine I suppose?
Or there was that litte incident called the Vietnam War - 4 million dead. But as long as they died democrats then everything's fine I suppose?