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.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
If you recall, they basically broke Al Queda in afghanistan and the Talibans back.
I wouldn't try to link a terrorist network that is still with us today (if barely) to the bad decision to invade Iraq.
I don't think the conservatives were gung ho about Iraq; I think war-mongers on both sides were excited about yet anther way to enrich the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Government proponents were happy to have an excuse to make government richer and more powerful by pretending a threat exists.
I wonder how many women versus men support our Empire-warmongering; I wonder how many of those support it when theysacrifice a large portion of their earnings in taxes, even though they have not yet paid for their retirements or kid's educations.
And I wonder how many Libertarians support idiotic and bankrupting foreign wars, considering party is 100% against such a waste of money we don't even have.
As to Republicans like Bush and Demos like Obama--I wonder if they could win a fair election when only sane Americans were allowed to vote.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
I dont know, ask the democrats who voted for it as well.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
It wasn't just conservatives so your entire premise is incorrect. I think it's funny how some from the left make things up when it's easy to prove them wrong so often. Probably because the policies they follow are horrible so they have to deflect.
The question to ask NOW is where are all the lefties in Congress who were against war yet clam up now that their chosen one is running the show? Odd how the left backs people like this.
Here's some quotes by Senator Obama.
"As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. "
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”
Clean your own filthy house first before you come over and complain about others houses not in being in order. And try to make your post be an honest assessment next time. It will give your posts the credibility they are currently lacking.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 02-10-2013 at 07:20 AM..
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
I was never to keen on the whole thing with Iraq. It was smoke and mirrors. W figured to finish the Gulf War, and thought public support would come easy.
From my porch, the plan was to draw Al Queda into an open fight, and it worked...somewhat. World opinion kept the administration from hitting Iran. Which is what we should have done.
I supported our forces, still do, in following the mission handed them. From a deeper standpoint, of a real strategic objective, Iraq was pure stupidity. So, there you have it. A conservative who was not so gung ho bout Iraq.
The Iraq mission gained us nothing, strategically. And there lies the caveat. What "strategic "scenerio lies in any of this "war on terror"? Where is the snakes head? (sigh) ....this is a mess, where we lose good people, who are willing and able to carry the fight, to "operations" that gain no ground in the long run.
But, I don't have a law degree from an Ivy university, Im just a bit citizen.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
Two Words: FOX News
Low information conservatives take instruction from the Mother Ship, and it instructed them to support an invasion of Iraq.
I do not really care. Afghanistan and Iraq were, and in the case of Iran and Syria, still are, supporting terrorist organizations that killed Americans. That alone is sufficient grounds to invade and overthrow their government.
Delusional.
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.
Why Were Conservatives So Gung Ho About Iraq...
