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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61
Considering that we are dealing with that issue in Afghanistan I'd think you are happy with your Presidents overall performance in the ME. Bush is doing a fine job
go ahead, say it
I would've been happy if he'd stopped with Afghanistan, at least until it was a done deal.
Considering he pushed for war with Iraq based on dubious reasons, see his lie about a report claiming Saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon, and has attempted to lead with sound bites ("Stay the Course" is not leadership when no course has actually been plotted ) I'd say crediting him with doing a fine job is only possible if the facts are ignored.
I would've been happy if he'd stopped with Afghanistan, at least until it was a done deal.
Considering he pushed for war with Iraq based on dubious reasons, see his lie about a report claiming Saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon, and has attempted to lead with sound bites ("Stay the Course" is not leadership when no course has actually been plotted ) I'd say crediting him with doing a fine job is only possible if the facts are ignored.
I think most of the world would have been happy if he stopped with Afghanistan, but where I have issue with your posting is blaming Bush for "lying" about a report that claimed Saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon.
Would you then agree that Clinton lied also, because he made claims just a few years earlier claiming the same. December 16, 1998 "First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. "
Update: The Taliban presence in Iraq prior to the Bush invasion was there to oppose Saddam.
Yes, and we are talking at most here about a couple of dozen Taliban who stayed with Ansarul Islam while in hiding during the American presence in Afghanistan. The camp itself is north of what was then the Northern No-Fly Zone and hence (just like the Kurds) enjoyed a US-provided protection from attack by any of Saddam's forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro
Diehard Bush backers keep slipping further into irrationality to justify their continued support of a failed presidency.
That about sums things up. The few remaining are driven to ever more desperate claims as the earlier ones are serially revealed to have been baseless...
In your opinion of course. And since your candidated whoever that may have been didnt have the opportunity we dont know how much worse they would have screwed things up
While no one can know for sure, there is every reason in the world to believe that Bugs Bunny would not have screwed things up as badly as this. That you need to take refuge in a claim such as the one above only illustrates the degree to which an absence of any rational defense of, or explanation for, Bush's various actions actually exists...
55% of the people in Iraq believe life has gotten better
70% of the people in Iraq favored the overthrow of Saddam
So to answer your question, no, they dont feel like they would be better off under Saddam
Some charts as to how much better (in red) or worse (in blue) Iraqi's felt things had gotten since the start of the surge per the BBC/ABC/NHK survey...
Some charts as to how much better (in red) or worse (in blue) Iraqi's felt things had gotten since the start of the surge per the BBC/ABC/NHK survey...
yes, I seen that, but I alo note you failed to include the charts that disagree with your argument. Why cant liberals post a fair posting without trying to slant data.... here, let me help
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I think most of the world would have been happy if he stopped with Afghanistan, but where I have issue with your posting is blaming Bush for "lying" about a report that claimed Saddam was 6 months away from a nuclear weapon.
Would you then agree that Clinton lied also, because he made claims just a few years earlier claiming the same. December 16, 1998 "First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. "
Well, since we're taking issue:
Clinton's statement "would be" is a far cry from claiming that Saddam was 6 months away, the unsubatantiated statement Bush made.
There's a big difference between stating something as a possibility and something as a fact.
Clinton didn't use his stated possibility to lead us into a war of choce.
Bush used his unsubstantiated statement to do so.
And to claim Clinton lied like Bush is delusional. Saying Saddam would be "free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years"is not the same as stating unequivocally he would have a weapon in 6 months.
HOW is it you equate rebuilding a program with having a weapon?
Clinton's statement "would be" is a far cry from claiming that Saddam was 6 months away, the unsubatantiated statement Bush made.
There's a big difference between stating something as a possibility and something as a fact.
Clinton didn't use his stated possibility to lead us into a war of choce.
Bush used his unsubstantiated statement to do so.
Clinton felt so confident in this that he not only Bombed Iraq.. but also passed the "Iraqi Liberation Act", setting the stage for Bush's invasion. Ignore the facts all you want but its the way it is..
Clinton felt so confident in this that he not only Bombed Iraq.. but also passed the "Iraqi Liberation Act", setting the stage for Bush's invasion. Ignore the facts all you want but its the way it is..
I don't quite see the point, unless it is to deflect blame from the one and only man truly responsible for the lives lost in Iraq, George W. Bush.
It was his decision. Anyone remotely familiar with the course of events following Bush's inaguaration would know that we were going to invade Iraq, it was inevitable.
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.
