Am I the only one astounded by the overt strong arm tactics employed by Obama and his puppeteers? (enemy, legal)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by momonkey

The definition of what was or was not an eminent threat changed on 9/11.

Not really, Iraq posed no imminent threat even when the Bush administration started planning its invasion, long before 9/11. What didn't change on 9/11 was their priorities, they chose to keep Iraq squarely in their sights even though Iraq was clearly not the perpetrator of those attacks.

Originally Posted by momonkey

What was or was not a legitimate campaign issue changed when Democrats realized they could hang an unpopular war they voted to authorize around Bush's neck.

The Bush adminstration hung an unpopular war around its own neck. The war was authorized by Congress, NOT mandated. The war was sold with a sales pitch based on half truths and possibly, maybe, could be, sold on the emotions of the time and not fact. Watch the PBS documentary Bush's War, until it is refuted with facts, and I've seen nothing yet, it will remain Bush's war.

Congress gave them the gun, the Bush regime pulled the trigger and owns the results.

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by pommysmommy

Just to give you a clue, it is rude to assume that people who disagree with your views are
"whiners" and that labeling those people as "Neo-confused" is quite ignorant of you.

And you do any better?
Perhaps you should reread some of your posts.

Every president does business the same way.
Funny how your outrage started on 20 Jan 2009 when a black, centrist man became president.

History did not start on that date.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

Not really, Iraq posed no imminent threat even when the Bush administration started planning its invasion, long before 9/11.

Neither did Hitler, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Dominican Republican, South Africa, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

Why arent you whining about those invasions and wars of which USA took part in?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by chielgirl

Every president does business the same way.
Funny how your outrage started on 20 Jan 2009 when a black, centrist man became president.

History did not start on that date.

When you have nothing of substance to say, bring out the race cards.... Typical..

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Neither did Hitler, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Dominican Republican, South Africa, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the list goes on, and on, and on...

Why arent you whining about those invasions of which USA took part in?

Because the one we continue to suffer from is Iraq, the one we need to remember so we don't put anyone from the same group of bozos back in power,

Why are you so willing to whine about the others while giving the perpetrators of the unnecessary war in Iraq a pass?

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by burdell

Because the one we continue to suffer from is Iraq, the one we need to remember so we don't put anyone from the same group of bozos back in power,

Why are you so willing to whine about the others while giving the perpetrators of the unnecessary war in Iraq a pass?

I'm not whining about ANY of them, I'm simply trying to determine why you are whining about one, while ignoring the dozens upon dozens of other ones.

Suffer how? The current BOZO entered Afghanistan and pumped up that war, but you arent whining about that one either.. Double standard?

[machiavelli1]

Originally Posted by burdell

Because the one we continue to suffer from is Iraq, the one we need to remember so we don't put anyone from the same group of bozos back in power,

Why are you so willing to whine about the others while giving the perpetrators of the unnecessary war in Iraq a pass?

And meanwhile, a murderous dictator has been removed, the Iraqi people are no longer under a dictatorship and have held free elections.

The war may have been staged under less than perfect circumstances, but the end result is not bad

[buzzpost]

Democrats... The party of SO?

[buzzpost]

Originally Posted by theolsarge

Oh boy, the conspiracies are thick here!

Dope companies can't produce enough psych meds for this group.

Not with you hogging up all of the resources.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pghquest

I'm not whining about ANY of them, I'm simply trying to determine why you are whining about one, while ignoring the dozens upon dozens of other ones.

Well, if you'd paid attention you'd know I haven't ignored others, I've spoken out a number of times about those from both sides of the aisle responsible for Vietnam and what a debacle it was. And since you brought up Grenada, those who invoke violation of UN sanctions as justification for invading Iraq and also deify Reagan should take a look at what the UN had to say about Grenada.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Suffer how?

Needless deaths, needless cost, needless debt. ALL at NO benefit to the US, take your pick.

Originally Posted by pghquest

The current BOZO entered Afghanistan and pumped up that war, but you arent whining about that one either.. Double standard?

BULL! I've never said Bush's war in Afghanistan wasn't justified although I believe it was a MAJOR screw up diverting needed assets to the unnecessary war in Iraq. NO double standard, just your overactive, biased imagination.