Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If often wondered this same thing about our current President who has bombed more countries than Bush. I also wonder if the increase in military deaths under Obama was worth it considering he pulled our roops out?
Obama has a long way to go to catch up with Bush, on Military deaths. Go look for yourself, instead of parroting what the Hate Obama crowd is saying. I posted those figures in another thread.
You also need to educate yourself on the "Pull Out" you claim. Iraq "ordered" us out, and we had a deadline. Iraqi Government would not give extensions or conditions to stay. They told us to get out. If that's you idea of "Pulling Out" so be it, but at least tell the whole truth and not just the parts right wing nuts like.
Just for curiosity, since you seem to have some facts, name the Countries Bush Bombed, vs the ones you say Obama bombed, and lets see how they pan out. Or is that just more What you heard...
You just want to remember it as a Republican issue so you can keep cheerleading.
The votes and quotes from leading Democrats before and after Bush won the WH are quite clear.
It was a Republican issue. Republicans are ostensibly the party of personal responsibility. At least that is what they say. Who was President and Commander-in-Chief at the time? Who made the call to invade? All that I said in my post is true about the run up to the war.
Do you really think Al Gore would have made a similar decision? You'd have to be beyond partisan to think he would have. Democrats huffed and puffed about Hussein, but did nothing more.
For the record, those Democrats that did vote for the war resolution paid for it as well. Hillary paid for it and may still pay for it if ISIS is in the news during her run for the Democratic nomination.
Last edited by TreeBeard; 02-17-2015 at 01:48 PM..
Never heard anyone say that. Sorry if being reminded of how badly Republicans govern bugs you.
We know there is LOT you DON'T know based on your postings such as , "Sorry if being reminded of how badly Republicans govern bugs you."
Considering I DON"T think the repubs are governing BADLY.
Which goes to show. AGAIN, you don't know what you are talking about.
What seem to bug you is that MOST statets are run by Repubs. More governors and MORE legislatures and of course The U.S SENATE and the U.S House of Representatives are ALL run by repubs.
As some one said "We won, get used to it". You probably never heard that ether!
The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]
The resolution is all based on the "Cherry Picked Intel" from the Bush administration. Every Country involved, and every Person involved has repeatedly said that they would have never voted for anything, had they been told the truth. The whole war was based on Lies. No way around that.
Even Bush said it was a mistake.....Cheney still supports it....What does that tell you?
It was a Republican issue. Republicans are ostensibly the party of personal responsibility. At least that is what they say. Who was President and Commander-in-Chief at the time? Who made the call to invade? All that I said in my post is true about the run up to the war.
Bush was commander-in-chief, and he came to the same conclusion that Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, etc. etc. came to with the information handed to them - Iraq had WMDs and Iraq was a threat to global peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
Do you really think Al Gore would have made a similar decision? You'd have to be beyond partisan to think he would have. Democrats huffed and puffed about Hussein, but did nothing more.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
So, you're argument is that when Democrats believe there is a threat, they'll talk about it but never do anything about it? Wow, what a vote of confidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
For the record, those Democrats that did vote for the resolution paid for it as well. Hillary paid for it and more still pay for it if ISIS is in the news during her run the Democratic nomination.
It has nothing to do with "paying for it" and everything to do with the belief that the threat was real.
It's this whole liberal talking point that Bush "lied" to us. Bush didn't lie to us, the information that Bush counted on was wrong.
A person lies when they know what they are saying is not true. When a person fully believes something is true and repeats it to others, they are wrong but not lying.
And we heard "we know they are there" speeches from leading Democrats throughout it all.
Exactly! Based on the Phony Intel and Lies told to them by the Bush administration. The "Leading Democrats" had to go to Bush, as President, to get Intel provided to them, so he passed on the lies, so thanks for validating what I said.
[/list]The resolution is all based on the "Cherry Picked Intel" from the Bush administration. Every Country involved, and every Person involved has repeatedly said that they would have never voted for anything, had they been told the truth. The whole war was based on Lies. No way around that.
There is no way around the FACT that if Bush was lying, so were Clinton, Kerry, Gore, etc. etc.
They were telling us those LIES before Bush was elected and kept repeating them up to when they essentially voted for war.
Exactly! Based on the Phony Intel and Lies told to them by the Bush administration. The "Leading Democrats" had to go to Bush, as President, to get Intel provided to them, so he passed on the lies, so thanks for validating what I said.
When was Bush elected? I'm assuming you don't know, but I'll ask.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Hindsight is 20/20. I don't think there is much of an argument against the Iraq War being a mistake. But if memory serves me right, there was a lot of popular support for the war when it began. I'm curious what people's thinking at the time was that would render such a war beneficial in some way.
lets look at history. Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait in 1990. The peace treaty that Saddam signed to stay in power was that he obeyed ALL the resolutions that he has been violating for over 12 years after the treaty. That's like keeping Hitler in power in Germany if he obeyed the peace treaty but he turns around for 12 years and violates it and stick his finger at us and fires at our planes and plans to kill our president. You going to take that lightly and ignore it?
If you ignore him then others will follow and what good is a treaty and resolution for peace if the aggressor refuses to obey it.
The U.S. didn't start this but we sure finished it.
lets look at history. Iraq invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait in 1990. The peace treaty that Saddam signed to stay in power was that he obeyed ALL the resolutions that he has been violating for over 12 years.
If you ignore him then others will follow and what good is a treaty and resolution for peace if the aggressor refuses to obey it.
The U.S. didn't start this but we sure finished it.
Just to point out, it wasn't a peace treaty, it was a cease-fire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
