I love how you say I've swallowed an entire load of crap when you spout the same old tired, worn-out, anti-Bush rhetoric without any logic, proof, or independent corroboration what-so-ever. I guess we've found who / why some are so gullible and naïve. BTW - I noticed that you have no response for my challenge to you...
I'm with V on this. Regardless of your nationality, the masses are easily swayed with effective propaganda. American's were swayed by the Bush administration. The majority couldn't have told you the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osam Bin Ladan. There are billions of dollars invested in the armament industry. War is simply a marketing initiative. Hitler was a threat. Hussein was just a cruel dictator in his little corner of the world.
See if I was running this place I'd immediately send Roger Clements to be held at Guantanamo to await trial where I would secretly arrange for him to be anally raped & beaten by a Senior Al-Qaeda prisoner that way linking all this altogether creating the right illusion & smokescreen necessary to win a re-election & fulfill my agenda. And look seriously, I gurrantee I could compile in one day a list of 10,000+ things that congress should be looking into before ever considering MLB/steroids, but that cheater Roger Clements has cost my Cardinal's a WS, so as far as I'm concerned it couldn't have happened to a better person. Also, to have someone be anally raped is way too harsh and nothing to joke around about, so I'd probably just arrange for him to be anally finger banged (3 in the stink). :icon_lol:
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held to a different standard than President Bill Clinton who signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I see here that it said with in Iraq not from with in the us or using us troops? at cost of more money than can even think of, my mind can't go that high
rdubnpk Seems to me that to "support Democratic movements within Iraq" and to invade a soverign country with no justification are two widely different things.
No responsibilidad por nada I don't know when it started, exactly, but unlike the U.K., where government officials are expected to resign in disgrace when they commit a major "f" up, in the U.S., at least, it's become fashionable to conclude no one is really responsible. The last time I heard a leader in the U.S. talk of making someone responsible was when the then President Bush declared that, when he found the person responsible for disclosing that Valery Plame was a spy for the U.S., they would be fired. Unknown to him, the person behind the disclosure was the Vice President, the holder of a constitutionally established, elected office, and not subject to being fired by him, or anyone else. Since then, there's been no further talk of making anyone responsible, no matter how serious their error; instead, the practice has become to give them awards. Take George Tennant, for example, who made what must have been one of the most monumental of mistakes in history when he declared that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were a "slam dunk" case. Rather than resigning, when he was shown to have been wrong, and badly wrong, he was awarded a President Medal! President Obama has continued this practice, refusing to pursue any of the incompetents, and wrongdoers, who lead us into the war in Iraq.
Hmmm, so you would like to indict Bush? Why stop there? Let's add Obama with his arbitrary withdrawal from Iraq which does nothing but play into the hands of the insurgents. Then he can do what he does best and blame Bush. But let's not stop there. How about we indict Clinton for his sell out of America to Wal Mart and the Chinese? John Kennedy would certainly deserve to be indicted for Vietnam. Iraq only cost us a few thousand while Vietnam cost us tens of thousands. What about Reagan for his super spending? Maybe Truman for the use of the Atom Bomb on Japan. I'm sure we can find a reason to go after every American president in the last 100 years. Does that mean they are unaccountable? Probably to a certain extent it does, but in theory the ballot box is their accountability. Some, like Obama, will always blame others because they are above reproach. Others can just live off a false reputation or win with unjust accusations. You can ask Michael Dukaukis about that last item. It is the way of American politics and goes back a very long way. There was an interesting article in American Heritage about how Abraham Lincoln stole the Republican nomination in 1860 by a whole bunch of dirty tricks. His punishment? He is one the most revered of all American presidents. I don't see it ever changing as long as we have a media who insists on distortion rather than accuracy and no restrictions on selling government to the highest bidder.
Liberating Iraq from Saddam may have been based on bad intel (hindsight truly is 20/20) but the end result is that Saddam and his sons are no longer in charge. Whatever happens in Iraq they now have the ability to make their country a better place. You can claim all the weird theories you want but in the end Saddam was a wacko and needed to be taken down. You can't deny he had a history of using WMDs. And you really can't blame Bush for listening to the intel he was given. The president doesn't gather the intel himself. He can only go off what he's given. Personally I think the proof of WMDs is still out there. A country is a big place to search. He'll Osama is still hiding in the mountains almost 10 years later.
