Nic_Driver
Active Member
- Mar 25, 2011
- 868
- 76
- 28
play along?
I personally saw us as having a fair debate where we disagreed. I have not spun anything and I have explained why I felt what i felt. I did not just make blanket statements...I backed them up with why I believed what I beleived.
However, you then said that Bush did not have congressional approval. Now that is either an outright lie which is useless for a fair debate...or you are naive and not qualified to engage in this type of debate.
As for the facts presented to congress...it is up to congress to determine if the facts are true for they are the ones burdened with making the decision.
Sure, when things started to go bad, some jumped ship and started to say they were lied to. But if you recall, that was a pattern. They were lied to by the Presidnet regarding intel...but had nothing to back it up. Then they were lied to by the CIA regarding waterboarding..and again had nothing to back it up.
So you see.....you have allowed your political leaning to believe those who claim they allowed the wrong thing to be done becuase they were working with lies...and I am allowing my political leaning allow me to believe the ones who say otherwise.
But now here is the difference.....
The ones who claim they were lied to are paid great salaries and benefits to make sure they have accurate information before they make a decision. The President, on the other hand is not allowed to make any decision unless he has approval from congress (except for executive orders).
So they can say whatever they wasnt as their reason for making the wrong decision...but the bottom line is they did not do their due diligence....
And your political leaning has allowed you to give them a free pass...even though they dropped the ball.
Although...I dont see that they dropped the ball. I believe the action was warranted...and they were political ship jumpers becuase they didnt know how to explain why they were first for the war and then against the war.
I consider them cowards...my opinion.
I guess what bothers me the most is Bush gave the order to invade, no one else did or could have. He bears the responsibility for the deaths of American service men and women and should have followed established protocol by following the UN Resolutions regarding this matter.
It wasn't the fault of any Democrat or Independent or Republican, just Bush and he now has blood on his hands and is a wanted war criminal in parts of the world.
I respect your sentiment. If I bleived what you believe, I would be dammed angry as well. Not saying what you believe is wrong......but it is not what I believe.
But that is where we are different.
I do not blame Obama for the lack of success with the stimulus. I blame congress. He just signed the dam bill. It was congress that should have done their due diliogence and ensure the jobs were shovel ready...and ensure the economy was where they thought it was......they are the ones with the "staffers" and "budgets" and "committees".
To me the President is a figurehead. Yes, he is the CiC...but he has his JCoS to oversee all military activities.
But that is where we are different.
Another way we are different is I don't compare apples to oranges.
There are a great many things about the Obama presidency to which I object but his administration is completely separate from the invasion of Iraq and the stimulus is not comparable to the invasion of Iraq, even in the smallest regard.
That type of argument is called "obfuscation" and with its use there is an attempt to cloud the issue at hand with a non-related issue.
Bush DID order the invasion of Iraq, consequently he bears responsibility for it and the lies that justified it.