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.
Bush could have said no and focused on finding/eliminating our attackers.
WHY not?
Plans to invade Iraq were being made by the Bush administration months before 9/11, refusing to alter those plans post 9/11 was of NO benefit to the US.
Why didn't the DEM CONTROLLED Senate kill the bill?
The Senate Majority Leader, a dem, CO-SPONSORED the bill as well as the dem House leader.
As we have seen with Ole' harry he can kill ANY bill he wants to.
I am glad to see that you support a leader who violated the treaty he signed, not being held accountable.
Bush could have said no and focused on finding/eliminating our attackers.
WHY not?
Plans to invade Iraq were being made by the Bush administration months before 9/11, refusing to alter those plans post 9/11 was of NO benefit to the US.
The New York Times was very careful to insert the sentence about WMD in Iraq -- they are consistent on Bush and the Iraq War ..... ignoring once again that Congress voted for this War, based on the same intel that Bush had.
That's not what this article is really about .... and it's certainly worth a careful read. This article is all about Government LIES. They LIED about finding the Chemical Weapons. They didn't warn the soldiers about what they were doing. They didn't warn the Medical people about what the soldiers were finding. They kept it all Secret.
Over 5,000 Chemical bombs were found, many soldiers were seriously injured and they never received good medical care. They still aren't receiving good Medical care through our corrupted VA System .... that they are also LIEING about. All of this happened during the Bush years and has continued during the Obama years.
They LIE - They COVER-UP, and people suffer.
In the last paragraph of this article, we find out that the Islamic State now controls some of those known Chemical Weapons Dumps. Obama made Maliki promise to destroy them ..... Oh well - poop happens.
Can't rep you - but you are on the money.
The public wanted war (84%). Congress knew it and they voted to approve the war.
The larger issue is why they were ordered to secrecy... and why others were sent to deal with the weapons and suffered harm.
The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ †he said. “There were plenty.â€
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet
Lets go back to pre 911. Afghanistan had offered no imminent threat to the US until we discovered Al queda was using the country for training basis for 911. We came to the conclusion we needed to remove those training grounds as they were a threat to the country. So the Bush doctrine cam into effect which was to eliminate threats to the country by attacking terrorists before they could attack us. The Bush Doctrine. Sadam was harboring and helping various terrorists groups and even Clinton realized the threat to countries who harbored terrorist. Because Sadam had ignored UN demands for may years , because the UN and our congress approved of the action we attacked Iraq . Bush said we would not distinguish terrorist from countries that harbor them. The world and even enough of the democrats agreed there was enough of a threat after ignoring the UN to take action.
Bush left office with an elected Iraq stable government and Biden stated Iraq being stable was Obamas great achievements. If Iraq being stable was a great Achievement of Obama how is it falling apart is now Bushes fault.
Now we have ISIS and want to return to the days pre 911 and think those ISIS training camps will not bring an attack on America so lets throw a few bombs their way to show the world we care. The problem will happen when ISIS attacks America on our soil . of course with Obama he will write it off as work place violence.
Attack the terrorist where they live? or wait for them to attack us then attack them where they live?
Either way we will need to deal with them .
Attacking terrorists where they live is not the same as a full scale invasion/occupation of a country that did nothing to us. Surely if we KNEW where these alleged terror training camps were being conducted in Iraq they could have been attacked without an invasion/occupation using air strikes, cruise missiles, etc.
As it is, with al Qaeda KNOWN to have been operating in more than 40 countries at the time and there being little evidence that Iraq contained a large portion if any of its activities, a full scale invasion/occupation hardly seems a wise or effective choice of action.
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.
