GW's last days comic strip

[breadbox]

I my opinion the bush family in general is the embodiment of the American Way.

An influential family that through connections in industrial businesses has done pretty much done whatever they want.

I like the second one best.

Let's see some war crime trials.

[ishkabibble]

You always see this out of young people. Then they turn into Republicans at 30.

Really? Funny that you're under 30 and are saying that. I'm over 30, and agree that the chances of me ever associating with the Republican party got slimmer after the Bush admin.

Congress did not declare war on Iraq, and the majority of Dems voted against the use of military force. Better check your facts before you bold and ALL CAPS. It ruins what little credibility you have.

[brizanden]

ahhh i got ignored... my response was semi edumacated. this is why i stay out of here people just ignore me. im gonna go cry.

[OriginalWheelman]

Congress did not declare war on Iraq, and the majority of Dems voted against the use of military force. Better check your facts before you bold and ALL CAPS. It ruins what little credibility you have.

Oh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

With the support of large bipartisan majorities, the US Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The resolution asserts the authorization by the Constitution of the United States and the United States Congress for the President to fight anti-United States violence. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by US President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

[ishkabibble]

[QUOTE=OriginalWheelman]

Oh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Yep. No declaration of war, and 137 Dems voted "nay".

[OriginalWheelman]

How is that not a declaration of war? Let me repeat myself.

THE BIPARTISAN CONGRESS DECLARED WAR ON IRAQ. GEORGE BUSH DID NOT HAVE THE POWER.

George Bush did not declare war, congress did. And 110 Dems voted FOR The war. So it was almost a 50 / 50 split.

* And if you really want to get into it, the real justification for removing Saddam from power came from Bubba.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorlst organizations," including anti-United States terrorlst organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

[ishkabibble]

It wasn't because it wasn't. Most of our military outings have not been Declarations of War.

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."

-Alberto Gonzales

[OriginalWheelman]

Ok then.

THE BIPARISAN CONGRESS AUTHORIZED THE USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ. GEORGE BUSH DID NOT HAVE THE POWER.

The reason the system is setup this way to keep the decision and the guilt on the hands of the whole government. You can not blame GWB without blaming every member of congress who voted for the war, and every person that put them on office. Our collective politicians, and thus, we the people are responsible. NOT GWB.

[480sx]

GWB's crew made the case for war. They showed the intelligence. They pushed this thing since 9/11 hard.

In addition, GWB was the leader of our government. That places a lions shares worth of the 'blame' on his lap. While he o/c was not the only reason we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was a primary contributing factor, the driving force behind the invasions and subsequent occupations.

[marlin29311]

GWB's crew made the case for war. They showed the intelligence. They pushed this thing since 9/11 hard.

In addition, GWB was the leader of our government. That places a lions shares worth of the 'blame' on his lap. While he o/c was not the only reason we are at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he was a primary contributing factor, the driving force behind the invasions and subsequent occupations.

The president is not the leader of the Government, he/she is the head of the Executive branch, but generally regarded as the figurehead of the US Governmental system. The other two branches are equally at fault for anything that happens - checks and balances.

[OriginalWheelman]

The president is not the leader of the Government, he/she is the head of the Executive branch, but generally regarded as the figurehead of the US Governmental system. The other two branches are equally at fault for anything that happens - checks and balances.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[480sx]

The president is not the leader of the Government, he/she is the head of the Executive branch, but generally regarded as the figurehead of the US Governmental system. The other two branches are equally at fault for anything that happens - checks and balances.

The executive branch during W's reign was more powerful than ever before. The executive branch had its claws so deep into the judicial branch that it was as if that balance didnt exist at all.

Semantics as far as your first point.

In addition, there is substantial evidence that the Bush/Blair administration fabricated intelligence linking Al Qaeda to Iraq to make a case for war. Even before 9/11.

[brizanden]

^well yeah if you knew anything about sadamm and iraqs gorvernment which was that sadam was a extreme sectualar nationilist while al qeada which is as we know a radical religous group. Sadam easily would have had an religious crazies killed simple becuase he could and he hated them. It was only when we came in to overthrow him that iraq became a breeding ground for al qeada amongst other terroists. I agree with you 480sx that we have created a seriously screwed up situation in iraq, but i disagree that it all g wubs fault. I believe there is reasons we are in iraq that people arent looking at right now and luckily for the government the people are falling for the obvious answers and blaming a president who wont be around after awhile anyway. Our government is good at debassing governments and keeping it a secret as to why they want to. They are however bad at picking people that will follow their will and keep the country in line.

[ishkabibble]

You can not blame GWB without blaming every member of congress who voted for the war, and every person that put them on office.

I don't have any respect for anyone Congresspeople who voted for the war unless they publicly, sincerely discussed how they regret their decision. But your blame sure stretches way far back. You're taking the Matt "butterfly effect" approach to spread the blame around to everyone except those primarily responsible, I guess.

Our collective politicians, and thus, we the people are responsible. NOT GWB.

Ok, it's all your fault then.

Sorry, the Bush admin was out actively duping everyone with filtered intel and propaganda, pushing the case for war. Primary blame lies with them.

The president is not the leader of the Government, he/she is the head of the Executive branch, but generally regarded as the figurehead of the US Governmental system. The other two branches are equally at fault for anything that happens - checks and balances.

And that logic still places the blame primarily with the former Republican administration. They controlled the three branches, two of them almost entirely.

[Jesda]

Do we really need to hash this out AGAIN? President Clinton said there was evidence that Iraq was building bioweapons/WMDs.

President Clinton the Iraqi Liberation Act. It was not a declaration of war, but it was a statement of intent for regime change in Iraq, based on what he and the US congress and the UN believed were bioweapons programs taking place under Saddam.

President Bush and Tony Blair agreed that physically removing Saddam Hussein from power would be the best way to achieve that goal.

Iraq was believed, by ALL, to be a rogue state building bioweapons, and ALL agreed that Saddam Hussein should be removed or contained.

People have short memories.

And lets not forget UN res 1441.

[480sx]

No one has a problem with us rousting Sadam. That needed to be done, although it should have been doing by a 'Grand Coalition of the Willing'. Its this cluster fvk we are involved in now thats the issue. Its the forethought that was completely lacking when going into Iraq in the first place.

We were just going to go in, demo the Bath party and Sadam, and BAM! DEMOCRACY! Pure idiocy. If we had gone in, took out Sadam and then told the rest of the country to hash out the details of their own government we would be a hell of a lot better off. There would have been chaos, order would have followed. We could have supported the civilans in the mean time, spent our money on humanitarian needs all the while carrying out spec ops missions targeting known terrorlst cells in the area.

We probably (ignoring the current situation) would have ended up with something better, might have end up with something worse(worse than Sadam? unlikely, however possible). At the very least, we wouldnt have nearly as much fanatical hatred for our country that is going to bite us in the *** again, and again, and again for the next 50 years.

This whole Regan era 'spread democracy around the world at all costs' sht has gotta end.

I for one was in HS when that ish went down. So the whole Iraqi Liberation Act was news to me, thanks.

I kept looking in that resolution for something like.. 'And if Iraq does not comply we will'.... Uh, where was that. The UN needs a pair of testicles along with a big stick.

Briz - Im not saying at all it was GWB's fault entirely. Im blaming him, his administration, congress(to a lesser extent, i believe they were duped in a manner of speaking) Tony Blair and his crew, the whole lot of them. The problem with this system of government in its current state is lack of accountability. We saw it in Abu Ghraib(TINY example). The events there were made nearly legal(when i say nearly, i mean actually. I only say nearly because in reality, they were and are not legal by any means.) by policy signed by Bush himself. The little guy always takes the fall, while the 'root of all evil( )' takes no responsibility.
Modified by 480sx at 8:56 PM 1/22/2009

[Jesda]

No one has a problem with us rousting Sadam. That needed to be done, although it should have been doing by a 'Grand Coalition of the Willing'. Its this cluster fvk we are involved in now thats the issue. Its the forethought that was completely lacking when going into Iraq in the first place.

We were just going to go in, demo the Bath party and Sadam, and BAM! DEMOCRACY! Pure idiocy. If we had gone in, took out Sadam and then told the rest of the country to hash out the details of their own government we would be a hell of a lot better off. There would have been chaos, order would have followed. We could have supported the civilans in the mean time, spent our money on humanitarian needs all the while carrying out spec ops missions targeting known terrorlst cells in the area.

We probably (ignoring the current situation) would have ended up with something better, might have end up with something worse(worse than Sadam? unlikely, however possible). At the very least, we wouldnt have nearly as much fanatical hatred for our country that is going to bite us in the *** again, and again, and again for the next 50 years.

This whole Regan era 'spread democracy around the world at all costs' sht has gotta end.

I for one was in HS when that ish went down. So the whole Iraqi Liberation Act was news to me, thanks.

I kept looking in that resolution for something like.. 'And if Iraq does not comply we will'.... Uh, where was that. The UN needs a pair of testicles along with a big stick.

No.

We had a timetable and met it. We planned and helped create an elected Iraqi government, with an election that put our "guy" in power. The US and UK rebuilt the nation's damaged infrastructure and provided food, water, and medical supplies to civilians. The unexpected came in the form of militants dressed as civilians, which made it impossible to engage them openly.

Abu Grahib was a disagrace.

The world agreed that Saddam needed to go. The world believed he was developing bioweapons and was a threat, thus [one] reason for sanctions. Some agreed that removing him by force was the answer. Some disagreed. Everyone did agree that he was a problem.

Regardless of your view on the use of force, the reasons behind it were universally supported long before George W Bush became president. As president, he is responsible for leading America into war, and he takes responsibility in the form of his party losing power for years.

You've gone from blaming Bush for what you perceive to be fabricated evidence to instead blaming him for poor military strategy. I know you're just plain pissed at the guy, especially after a previous post where you went on an emotional tirade about it without offering any specifics. At some point, you have to put your feelings aside and examine what actually happened and what he does and does not deserve blame for.

He deserves blame for PLENTY, but I'm not willing to rewrite history so that I can blame him for EVERYTHING. I'm just not narrow-minded enough to think the way you do. You come across like an angry right-winger trying to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11.

[marlin29311]

And that logic still places the blame primarily with the former Republican administration. They controlled the three branches, two of them almost entirely.

Then blame the whole government, not GWB. Get it?

[480sx]

No.

Thats a great point.

We planned and helped create an elected Iraqi government, with an election that put our "guy" in power.

This is problematic, kinda like i was saying. Its 'our guy' in power, not the Iraqi peoples guy. The general Iraqi sentiment at this point is fvk America. Let alone all the other fanatics who funnel in from around the middle east and globe who hate America.

The unexpected came in the form of militants dressed as civilians, which made it impossible to engage them openly.

UNEXPECTED?! ARE YOU FING KIDDING ME? Is that some kind of excuse?!? 'We got there, and then, these guys that we had never seen or heard of before were in civilian clothes and they had guns and we were just completely taken by surprise!'

Do you honestly think that it was unexpected that terrorists would do this(as they had been doing FOREVER)? Do you really think that the top military brass was completely taken by surprise by their actions?

Again, it goes down to a complete lack of forethought shown by the government. Theres also a possibility that the top brass underestimated the effectiveness of terrorlst strategies, or over estimated their capabilities. However, this is no excuse. Terrorists had been fighting this way for years. This was no new strategy, this was not some revolutionary way of fighting. NO EXCUSE.

Abu Grahib was a disagrace.

Thats just the headliner. The other is GTMO. What about the so called 'secret' CIA prisons around the world? What about all the other injustices that wernt so stupidly caught on camera? This is a little bit of smoke, im willing to bet theres a roaring inferno.

The world agreed that Saddam needed to go. The world believed he was developing bioweapons and was a threat, thus [one] reason for sanctions. Some agreed that removing him by force was the answer. Some disagreed. Everyone did agree that he was a problem.

I supported this the first time you posted it. Nothing to argue about here.

Regardless of your view on the use of force, the reasons behind it were universally supported long before George W Bush became president.

Long as in several years.

You've gone from blaming Bush for what you perceive to be fabricated evidence to instead blaming him for poor military strategy.

I told you, that post was dead and gone and im not commenting on it or from it. I am not dwelling, there is no more emotional ish wrapped up in this. I am simply replying to your responses as if that post never happened. I am not blaming Bush completely for poor military strategy. He was never meant to be a military strategist, this is understood. Notice my use of the word 'We' instead of 'That ignoramus president we used to have GWB'.

I'm just not narrow-minded enough to think the way you do. You come across like an angry right-winger trying to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11.

No.

You ignored my -Briz quote completely, you only read what you want to read. The things that support your idea that im some narrow minded person, or whatever you think of me. Seriously, your reading comprehension isnt all that it should be. Or maybe your reading in between the lines skills are way worse than you believe them to be. But its probably just my incorrect use of terms after all.

[hal90000]

"People have short memories."

It is interesting that you mention this. In the hodge podge patch work of American foreign policy in the middle east we seem to forget what we do. To broaden the debate, where did Sadam get his WMD to begin with? We, along with other western allies, supplied him with many of the weapon that we later said he shouldn't have. Kind of like supporting Afgans against the Russians. The chickens eventually come home to roost.

As long as our govt trys to take diplomatic short cuts in an effort to maintain our way of life we will continually be supporting one despot against another. The faces (and countries) will just change over time.

[Jesda]

Thats a great point.

This is problematic, kinda like i was saying. Its 'our guy' in power, not the Iraqi peoples guy. The general Iraqi sentiment at this point is fvk America. Let alone all the other fanatics who funnel in from around the middle east and globe who hate America.

UNEXPECTED?! ARE YOU FING KIDDING ME? Is that some kind of excuse?!? 'We got there, and then, these guys that we had never seen or heard of before were in civilian clothes and they had guns and we were just completely taken by surprise!'

Do you honestly think that it was unexpected that terrorists would do this(as they had been doing FOREVER)? Do you really think that the top military brass was completely taken by surprise by their actions?

I read your entire post. You see the world through a drinking straw.

There are missteps and serious gaffes in the Bush administration's execution of the Iraq war. There are not issues with the REASONS for invasion. I'm waiting for you to show an ability to separate failed execution from failed reasoning.

There's a combination of issues at play in Iraq. On one hand, Iraq is a civilized nation with modern infrastructure and productive citizens, fractured into groups but still civilized. This created a challenge not seen in Afghanistan.

The other issue is what the Clinton and Bush administrations believed, that the Hussein regime failed to control terrorlst groups within Iraq's borders.

d!ck Cheney was dishonest in drawing ties to 9/11. He was not, however, inaccurate in saying that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorlst activity. These were informal groups lacking military uniforms that merged themselves into Iraqi society. THIS was the wildcard, and these groups existed prior to the US/UK invasion. THIS is what made the mission Iraq bloody and challenging.

The left thought the Bush administration was BSing about the presence of terrorists, and they were wrong.

The administration failed to militarily anticipate the response of informal, armed groups. They were believed to have evacuated Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, but they stuck around and blended in.

As for your prior emotional tirade, don't post something you know to be foolish and illogical if you don't want to be criticized for it. Your need to emotionally vent about the president on a public forum is low on everyone's list of concerns.

[Jesda]

"People have short memories."

It is interesting that you mention this. In the hodge podge patch work of American foreign policy in the middle east we seem to forget what we do. To broaden the debate, where did Sadam get his WMD to begin with? We, along with other western allies, supplied him with many of the weapon that we later said he shouldn't have. Kind of like supporting Afgans against the Russians. The chickens eventually come home to roost.

As long as our govt trys to take diplomatic short cuts in an effort to maintain our way of life we will continually be supporting one despot against another. The faces (and countries) will just change over time.

+1

A great deal of instability in the middle east was created, in part, by our own short-sighted political agendas.

[480sx]

I read your entire post. You see the world through a drinking straw.

All i can do is laugh my fvkin *** off about that one.

You keep watching network news 24/7 buddy and think you'v got an open mind with a fresh perspective.

There are not issues with the REASONS for invasion.

Yes, yes there are. Maybe not to you, but to most. The reasons for invasion were so simple to begin with, but over the years it has become abundantly clear that the reasons first listed were more than likely not the reasons we actually invaded. With the level of secrecy and the smoke that this administration has produced, to say there is no issue with the reasons for invasion isnt taking everything into perspective.

I'm waiting for you to show an ability to separate failed execution from failed reasoning.

"Quote, originally posted by Jesda »

The world agreed that Saddam needed to go. The world believed he was developing bioweapons and was a threat, thus [one] reason for sanctions. Some agreed that removing him by force was the answer. Some disagreed. Everyone did agree that he was a problem. /end quote

480sx - I supported this the first time you posted it. Nothing to argue about here."

So while you say you read my whole posts, it doesnt appear again as if you digest them well. Your preconceived notions and fallacious arguments are haunting you in regards to me Jesda.

These were informal groups lacking military uniforms that merged themselves into Iraqi society. THIS was the wildcard, and these groups existed prior to the US/UK invasion. THIS is what made the mission Iraq bloody and challenging.

Understood. This is somehow an excuse for the fubared situation we are now in? You acknowledge that it was a 'wildcard' therefor, you have realized that it was a known possibility which is showing me that your on track with reality. So basically, military planners had to know of this wildcard situation. I will say it again.. Our top brass either underestimated this 'wildcard' or overestimated their own abilities.

To me, it seems less of a 'wildcard' and more of a 'If we attack terrorists in the center of the middle east after declaring a war on TERRORISM, terrorists are going to flock to the defense of their terrorlst allies against a common enemy' kind of common sense thing.

It would be kinda like China attacking the US and when the Brits came to our aid China sayin WHAT THE FVK?!

The left thought the Bush administration was BSing about the presence of terrorists, and they were wrong.

Seriously? Who in their right mind would think that the multiple fractions of Iraq did not have any terrorlst operatives.. I mean that fact might be accurate and if so, it just seems again like.. Idiots at the helm.

The administration failed to militarily anticipate the response of informal, armed groups. They were believed to have evacuated Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, but they stuck around and blended in.

Failed indeed. To say nothing of the influx of terrorists from around the globe into Iraq. We underestimated terrorism, we in fact, feed it and gave it focus(think, USA/Allies).

As for your prior emotional tirade, don't post something you know to be foolish and illogical if you don't want to be criticized for it. Your need to emotionally vent about the president on a public forum is low on everyone's list of concerns.

No.

2 - I wanted my personal opinions of the President and the Administration to be known.

3 - I could give a fvk less what you, or anyone else thinks about that post or me. I will not defend that post, i dont need to, as iv already stated. You can criticize me as much as you like, i welcome it. I will throw it back in your faces when you do, and concede if you make a point that i havnt considered when i made mine. I admit when im wrong.

4 - Speak for yourself please. You use words like every and all far to often, and fail to do so correctly.

You would be wise to let that post go and continue on with the discussion at hand. There is no fruit to be picked down this road, no hatchets to be buried. It is a dead end for you, and anyone else who wants to try.

[Jesda]

Yes, yes there are. Maybe not to you, but to most. The reasons for invasion were so simple to begin with, but over the years it has become abundantly clear that the reasons first listed were more than likely not the reasons we actually invaded. With the level of secrecy and the smoke that this administration has produced, to say there is no issue with the reasons for invasion isnt taking everything into perspective.

"Quote, originally posted by Jesda »

The world agreed that Saddam needed to go. The world believed he was developing bioweapons and was a threat, thus [one] reason for sanctions. Some agreed that removing him by force was the answer. Some disagreed. Everyone did agree that he was a problem. /end quote

480sx - I supported this the first time you posted it. Nothing to argue about here."

So while you say you read my whole posts, it doesnt appear again as if you digest them well. Your preconceived notions and fallacious arguments are haunting you in regards to me Jesda.

Understood. This is somehow an excuse for the fubared situation we are now in? You acknowledge that it was a 'wildcard' therefor, you have realized that it was a known possibility which is showing me that your on track with reality. So basically, military planners had to know of this wildcard situation. I will say it again.. Our top brass either underestimated this 'wildcard' or overestimated their own abilities.

To me, it seems less of a 'wildcard' and more of a 'If we attack terrorists in the center of the middle east after declaring a war on TERRORISM, terrorists are going to flock to the defense of their terrorlst allies against a common enemy' kind of common sense thing.

It would be kinda like China attacking the US and when the Brits came to our aid China sayin WHAT THE FVK?!

Seriously? Who in their right mind would think that the multiple fractions of Iraq did not have any terrorlst operatives.. I mean that fact might be accurate and if so, it just seems again like.. Idiots at the helm.

Failed indeed. To say nothing of the influx of terrorists from around the globe into Iraq. We underestimated terrorism, we in fact, feed it and gave it focus(think, USA/Allies).

No.

2 - I wanted my personal opinions of the President and the Administration to be known.

3 - I could give a fvk less what you, or anyone else thinks about that post or me. I will not defend that post, i dont need to, as iv already stated. You can criticize me as much as you like, i welcome it. I will throw it back in your faces when you do, and concede if you make a point that i havnt considered when i made mine. I admit when im wrong.

Oh fun, conspiracy theories! Now we can argue about pretend-ideas about pretend-events. Smoke and mirrors smoke and mirrors!

You need to watch your language and your tone, which has gone from childish to flat out cursing. If you're going to say admittedly indefensible things, think twice before saying them. If you don't give a "teh eff bomb!!!1!!!eleven!!" then you should consider keeping it to yourself. When you share thoughts and ideas on a public forum, you open yourself to criticism, and I'm glad you did. It reveals the intense emotion that forms the basis of your ideas.

As for the discussion regarding Iraq, I think we agree more than we disagree, but you're failing to acknowledge the sequence of events that resulted in the invasion.

Our reasoning behind going to Iraq never changed -- there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein's regime was at best soft on creating a breeding ground for terrorists, possibly spurred by economic sanctions. There was also strong evidence of attempted genocide. What turned out to be a bluff were the weapons of mass destruction, which were either sold, shipped, dismantled, or never existed, perhaps as a way for Iraq to intimidate its neighbors -- a chess game that everyone lost. Saddam Hussein was executed, weapons were not found, and the US was left dealing with a mess of a nation. We got fooled, all of us.

This is the series of events you need to acknowledge before we advance this discussion. From here, we can agree and disagree on what strategic errors were made, of which there were many beginning with the failure to anticipate ununiformed "soldiers". The administration believed they were there but WRONGLY assumed they had all packed their bags and gone to Iran, and dissenters on the left were proven wrong -- that in Saddam's Iraq numerous terrorlst organizations, large and small, were able to organize and thrive.

[480sx]

Oh fun, conspiracy theories! Now we can argue about pretend-ideas about pretend-events. Smoke and mirrors smoke and mirrors!

A lot more realistic approach to dealing with this administration than eating network news by the bathtub load as you yourself have admitted to doing. These arnt so much pulled out of the air theories as they are theories based on happenings. Happenings that, surprise surprise, didnt find their way onto network news! The BBC covered some of them, however the US news just ignored it. I will revive thread i started a while back and you can read up on the tip of what i consider to be an iceburg if you feel the urge or have the time.

You need to watch your language and your tone, which has gone from childish to flat out cursing.

LOOK OUT FOR BOLD TYPE!

Language maybe, but until its brought up as a problem to me from a mod it is only a problem to you and those who take offense to commonly used words.

My tone? Its in direct response to your condescending replies to the majority of my posts. You reap what you sew. Want some respect? Two way street.

Till then, you can either deal with my tone, complain to a moderator that im being childish and cursing and have them deal with me, or accept that its in direct response to your own 'tone' and change it.

It reveals the intense emotion that forms the basis of your ideas.

Here you go again with your over generalizations. Be smart about this next time so i dont have to call you out on it. 'It reveals the intense emotion you feel towards Bush and the Administration that forms the basis of your ideas towards them.'

In addition, im 23, and have a lot of emotion when it comes politics. Just not as evolved as yourself i suppose.

If you're going to say admittedly indefensible things, think twice before saying them.

Oh i never said it was indefensible. Just that in this current state and time, i chose not to defend it. I always think twice, i was well aware of the consequences of that post. So far they have been positive really, im having a great time.

As for the discussion regarding Iraq, I think we agree more than we disagree, but you're failing to acknowledge the sequence of events that resulted in the invasion.

This is probably true. I did acknowledge them however, i just didnt regurgitate the information i gained in this thread from you. I figured this was unnecessary..

Our reasoning behind going to Iraq never changed -- there was a universal belief that Saddam Hussein's regime was at best soft on creating a breeding ground for terrorists, possibly spurred by economic sanctions. There was also strong evidence of attempted genocide. What turned out to be a bluff were the weapons of mass destruction, which were either sold, shipped, dismantled, or never existed, perhaps as a way for Iraq to intimidate its neighbors -- a chess game that everyone lost. Saddam Hussein was executed, weapons were not found, and the US was left dealing with a mess of a nation. We got fooled, all of us.

This is the series of events you need to acknowledge before we advance this discussion. From here, we can agree and disagree on what strategic errors were made, of which there were many beginning with the failure to anticipate ununiformed "soldiers". The administration believed they were there but WRONGLY assumed they had all packed their bags and gone to Iran, and dissenters on the left were proven wrong -- that in Saddam's Iraq numerous terrorlst organizations, large and small, were able to organize and thrive.

Heh, i already knew a lot of this, and acknowledged what you learned me in this thread.

[480sx]

I will restate my main problem with the Iraqi war.

The idiotic pretense of going in, smashing the Bath party, ousting Sadam then creating a cookie cutter democracy with our own ideals in a place that has never had a democracy, and isnt very fond/trusting of Americans to begin with.

The operation was rushed through in this climate of fear that has seemed to grip our country by the balls since 9/11. Whither its fear of impending terrorlst threats or fear of the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off on wall street, fear is causing some very poorly worded, poorly thought through legislation get past.

[Jesda]

The operation was rushed through in this climate of fear that has seemed to grip our country by the balls since 9/11. Whither its fear of impending terrorlst threats or fear of the equivalent of a nuclear bomb going off on wall street, fear is causing some very poorly worded, poorly thought through legislation get past.

This, I can completely agree with. Its why we have the expanded federal powers that both parties pushed through without debate. The scariest moment was right after 9/11 when Ted Kennedy and GWB urged us to "unite" for the "good" of America. *shudder*

Now we have DHS and the Patriot Act.

So, yeah, I think we agree on this issue more than we disagree, we're just tripping over details.

[LeroyBrown]

I think that History will treat GW Bush very well. Everyone prances around forecasting the doom of his legacy. But I think the Historians will be very kind to GW..

yeah for real

[ishkabibble]

Then blame the whole government, not GWB. Get it?

No, I don't get it. Primary blame lies somewhere, though all of the "yes" voters did play a part.

Another thing I don't get is why neocon sympathizers blame the whole government for everything that went on during the past 8 years, but they blame Clinton for everything that passed during his administration. A little consistency, please...

[Jesda]

Clinton was mostly asleep at the wheel, with some noteworthy exceptions (Israel, Kosovo). I generally favor an executive branch that does less, whether its out of principle or apathy.