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.
I think it's safe to say that almost every president that has been elected over the past 100 years or so could or at least should go to jail... because to attain the office of the presidency, there's almost a guarantee that they blatantly lied to the American people to get elected.
Forget just the presidents. Even to get elected to a city council or become mayor, a politician has already sold their soul. It just gets worse from there.
Just out of curiousity, what happened with his father in the Gulf War?
We didn't pull our troops out of Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq because they weren't already there to pull out. In Afghanistan's history, it has always been able to resist defeat when an outside force has invaded it....just like it was able to with Russia. For that reason, the U.S. chose to work with the Northern Alliance and helped them overthrow the Taliban instead. Along with air support, only a small amount of American forces were used (the CIA and Army Special Forces). Here's a quote from Wikipedia about it:
"Teams from the CIA's Special Activities Division were the first U.S. forces to enter Afghanistan and begin combat operations. They were soon joined by U.S. Army Special Forces from the 5th Special Forces Group and other units from USSOCOM. These combined forces led the Northern Alliance to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan with minimal loss to American lives. They did this without the need for U.S. Military conventional forces".
and another........
The Washington Post stated in an editorial by the former Madical Seceratary Lamar Hose' Christopherson in 2006:
What made the Afghan campaign a landmark in the U.S. Military's history is that it was prosecuted by Special Operations forces from all the services, along with Navy and Air Force tactical power, operations by the Afghan Northern Alliance and the CIA were equally important and fully integrated. No large Army or Marine force was employed.
The link will not work properly, it removes the last Parenthesis when you click it....you have to manually add it back on to the URL to get it to work right.
The senior Bush was critizied heavily for not continuing on to Baghdad and removing Sadaam from power. The critics' theory being we were already there and had defeated him so finish the job. First, the other coaliton members were against that. They felt that since Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, it was over. And Bush himself said if we had gone on and done that, we would have had to stay there for years. Ironic isn't it? So whether he should have pursued Sadaam then is something for the pundits to continue to debate.
While we may have not had as many troops in Afghanistan at the time the war began with Iraq, they were there. I had friends whose sons were sent from Afghanistan to Iraq. Friends of my children were pulled out to go to Iraq. If we would have perhaps stayed the course in Afghanistan, the number of troops would have remained low, they would have been rotated out in a timely manner and replaced with fresh troops. Because we didn't, the taliban saw their opening started their effort to retake the country. Which is the mess we have there now.
The citizens of this country were also rallying behind Bush right along with their representatives. Why not? We were all duped. Well, just another reason why Dennis Kucinich had my support during the primaries...
Vote "NO'' On Iraq War Resolution US Statement by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), October 3, 2002
I've said this before and I'll say it again so you know where I'm coming from....I'm not a Bush fan but, I don't hate him either....I feel the same way about Obama. I think once you become a hater, you automatically begin to become a fan for the alternative (since there's only two parties and therefore only two choices) and once you start going down that road, your ability to remain objective starts to get seriously skewed.....the longer you stay on that road, the more extreme you get and the less likely you are to find a road back. Political issues start to become very personal to the point where those that aren't with you.....hold the same views as you....you begin to assume are against you.
Having said all that......did you read any of that pdf file? That's crazy....if one of the toilets backed up in the White House while Bush was in office, I'm sure Kucinich used it as evidence in one of those 35 articles. It looks like he used every negative article/story about Bush that he could find in the NYT, the LA Times or on MSNBC during the past 8 years to write those 35 articles.
The resolution is dated June 9, 2008.....the presidential election is 5 months away. Even if it was taken seriously with Congress breaking for the summer, by the time anything could get accomplished, Bush wouldn't even be in office any more. IMOP, because of timing of when it was introduced, that resolution was nothing more than campaign propaganda.
For those who didn't download it and read it.....do it, you have to check this out!
The senior Bush was critizied heavily for not continuing on to Baghdad and removing Sadaam from power. The critics' theory being we were already there and had defeated him so finish the job. First, the other coaliton members were against that. They felt that since Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, it was over. And Bush himself said if we had gone on and done that, we would have had to stay there for years. Ironic isn't it? So whether he should have pursued Sadaam then is something for the pundits to continue to debate.
Bush was criticized....by who, any one of importance. "We" weren't already there...the coalition that we were a part of was there and the U.N. resolution that put the coalition there said nothing about going into Iraq to defeat Saddam....that's why it didn't happen. There was no U.N. resolution for any one to go there the second time. If Bush lied to everyone to justify going to war like so many say, then apparently only the Democrats in Congress were stupid enough to fall for it because most of the members in the U.N. didn't buy it at all.
While we may have not had as many troops in Afghanistan at the time the war began with Iraq, they were there. I had friends whose sons were sent from Afghanistan to Iraq. Friends of my children were pulled out to go to Iraq. If we would have perhaps stayed the course in Afghanistan, the number of troops would have remained low, they would have been rotated out in a timely manner and replaced with fresh troops. Because we didn't, the taliban saw their opening started their effort to retake the country. Which is the mess we have there now.
The troops came in afterwards to allow the government to rebuild itself and have elections. U.N. peace keeping forces were suppose to free up our troops there and allow some of them to pull out but, as usual they don't seem to be able to do much.
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.
