Question for Iraq war supporters

[maineman]

Your opinion and $0.99 will buy you a double cheeseburger at McD.

given Bush's shitty approval ratings, it would seem that the doctor's worthless opinion of Bush is held by many many Americans!

 

[misericordia]

watch his online excerpts. Google Aaron Russo. 5 minutes.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I know how your govt works. You have three branches - executive, legislative and judicial.

Of course Bush can cherrypick and decide what congress sees. Thing is, you wouldn't know. Nobody would know. As for Bill, he had no doubt huh? Is that why he invaded Iraq? Oh, that's right, he didn't....

No, he invaded Kosovo.....and we are still there, too.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, he invaded Kosovo.....and we are still there, too.

He didn't invade anywhere. Nato was already there. And how contentious an issue is Kosovo compared to Iraq. You do all things are not the same, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

Your opinion and $0.99 will buy you a double cheeseburger at McD.

It might also be on the money....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your Ignorance of our Govrnment is telling, and yet you wnt to argue with us about things you can not even bother learning about.

Congress is NOT controlled by the President. It is Independent and operates INDEPENDENTLY. The President has NO authority to prevent them from doing their jobs, he can not preven them from getting independent briefs and independent opinions from ANY and ALL sources. He can not tell them what intel reports that can and can not read or ask for. He can not order the FBI, CIA or any other intel gathering department to not deliver information to Congress nor can he dictate what information they will provide.

Claiming he can is just proof of your ignorance of our Government and how it functions. Whats worse though is you get these ideas from Americans that KNOW better. Or should.

 

[Dr Grump]

Your Ignorance of our Govrnment is telling, and yet you wnt to argue with us about things you can not even bother learning about.

Congress is NOT controlled by the President. It is Independent and operates INDEPENDENTLY. The President has NO authority to prevent them from doing their jobs, he can not preven them from getting independent briefs and independent opinions from ANY and ALL sources. He can not tell them what intel reports that can and can not read or ask for. He can not order the FBI, CIA or any other intel gathering department to not deliver information to Congress nor can he dictate what information they will provide.

Claiming he can is just proof of your ignorance of our Government and how it functions. Whats worse though is you get these ideas from Americans that KNOW better. Or should.

I know all that, but there is politics and there is politics....he has knowledge that some others don't. I remember way back near the beginning of his presidency there was some sort of investigation into power company monopolisation (I THINK it was power companies, I could be wrong). The inquiry was closed, lead by Cheney (from memory) and info was given by the power companies themselves AND the findings were never published.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I know all that, but there is politics and there is politics....he has knowledge that some others don't. I remember way back near the beginning of his presidency there was some sort of investigation into power company monopolisation (I THINK it was power companies, I could be wrong). The inquiry was closed, lead by Cheney (from memory) and info was given by the power companies themselves AND the findings were never published.

So what? Vice Presidents can NOT create nor even sign into effect laws. Presidents can not create laws either. Claiming that because a member of the executive had a private meeting somehow equates to lying to Congress is beyond belief.

Further that meeting had nothing to do WITH Congress at all. The Executive is not required to brief the Legislative branch on everything they do.

Now perhaps you can GET on topic and remind us how Bush somehow thwarted Congress from its ability to independently gather information? A claim that is patently false. Provide us with some actual evidence this happened.

 

[Zoomie1980]

He didn't invade anywhere. Nato was already there. And how contentious an issue is Kosovo compared to Iraq. You do all things are not the same, right?

Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO. We constitute over 75% of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder. The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort. Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.

And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all. Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq. Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism. At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO. We constitute over 75% of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder. The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort. Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.

And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all. Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq. Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism. At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.

LOL!

If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t.

Now that the table are turned however, and Bush has bungled us into a costly disaster in iraq, republicans are sticking by their hero and blindly taking orders from him.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.

LOL!

If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t.

Now that the table are turned however, and Bush has bungled us into a costly disaster in iraq, republicans are sticking by their hero and blindly taking orders from him.

I love when you retards claim we are blindly following. What we are doing,as we did under Clinton is acknowledging Bush is President. Admit it you Liberals just want to accuse Bush cause your hero got impeached for lying to a Judge under Oath. You can't let it go.

There was not this huge camp of people constantly calling Clinton a liar EVEN after he admitted he lied under oath, NOR did we the Conservatives spend 8 years claiming Clinton was not "our" President. We did not do much of anything even after it became clear your hero Clinton was even taking Bribes from China. And nothing was done after he sold pardons for cash. No action was taken for him renting out the White House to his supporters either. And nothing happened to him for having over 900 FBI files in his residence ( of political enemies) which also is against the law. No action was taken after he fired the white house travel office and made false claims they committed crimes either.

Clinton never got 50 percent of the vote in either election, yet we did not spend 8 years decrying he was not our President.

 

[Zoomie1980]

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were.

LOL!

If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t.

Now that the table are turned however, and Bush has bungled us into a costly disaster in iraq, republicans are sticking by their hero and blindly taking orders from him.

We are in an on-going civil war in the Balkans. It is only our presence that keeps the murderous factions in the Balkans apart. You have no clue, obviously. Just because the left-wing dominated world media chooses not to cover it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what "orders" they are taking....

 

[Dr Grump]

Uhhhh.....for the CLUELESS, for all practical purposes...we ARE NATO. We constitute over 75% of it's combat power and are BY FAR it's main funder. The Balkans was almost 100% an American combat effort. Bill Clinton committed 20,000 ground troops to the Balkans in 1995 and 1996 with the PROMISE that they'd return home in less than one year....ALL 20,000 are STILL THERE.

And NO Iraq is NO LESS "contentious" than the Balkans were. The only difference is left wing loons, like you, are blinded by their hatred of ANYTHING Bush does or has ever done.

And no, I am NOT a Bush fan at all. Bush bungled what should have been a fairly straight forward operation in Iraq. Clinton laid the ground work for 9/11 to happen by mostly ignoring Islamic terrorism. At least he did the right thing in the Balkans, since the Euroweenies can't handle even insignificantly TINY aggressions....they tend to piss on themselves any time they are threatened.

You are beyond an idiot...here's a news flash, the European arm of NATO was involved long before America re the Balkans (not talking just Kosovo here, but the whole region). By the time you guys got your arses involved it had been going for a couple of years. I suppose you believe WWII started in 1941 too? And as part of NATO, you should have been involved A LOT earlier.

The Euros main problem was they were too PC. Then again, they are right in the vacinity so any impact vis-a-vis refugees etc would have an immediate impact.

BS being no less contentious. What a load of utter crap. Kosovo was a police action as was Somalia. Iraq is a full blown war. Do a little research and draw upo a chart with two headings. On one side put the word Kosovo, on the other Iraq. Then start lists: How many died in Iraq vs Kosovo?, then put the numbers. Do the same with the number of wounded, equipment used, financial costs etc, etc, etc.

There are some clueless people on these boards for sure, and it looks like you've stepped up to be their poster boy..congrats...

 

[Dr Grump]

We are in an on-going civil war in the Balkans. It is only our presence that keeps the murderous factions in the Balkans apart. You have no clue, obviously. Just because the left-wing dominated world media chooses not to cover it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what "orders" they are taking....

It is not just the US involved. Typical right-wing loon patriot crapola... There is no on-going civil war at all. There are the odd run-ins happening, but nothing more that is happening in other parts of the world. There is no wholesale war going on. Where do you get this crap? Your cheerios packet?

 

[Zoomie1980]

It is not just the US involved. Typical right-wing loon patriot crapola... There is no on-going civil war at all. There are the odd run-ins happening, but nothing more that is happening in other parts of the world. There is no wholesale war going on. Where do you get this crap? Your cheerios packet?

Reading for comprehension is not a strong suit of yours...obviously.

 

[Dr Grump]

Reading for comprehension is not a strong suit of yours...obviously.

Obviously...

 

[M14 Shooter]

If bill clinton had squandered a trillion dollars in the balkans, killed or wounded 30,000 american soldiers, and bungled us into a civil war there, I guarantee you that liberals would be among the first to say we needed to get out of that sh*t.

So, it IS OK to lie about going to war -- so long ad you dont kill 'too many' people, spend 'too much' money and have a (D) next to your name.

Good to see you can admit it.

 

[Taomon]

So, it IS OK to lie about going to war -- so long ad you dont kill 'too many' people, spend 'too much' money and have a (D) next to your name.

Good to see you can admit it.

No, it is never okay to lie in order to go to war. But pointing the finger at Clinton and ignoring Bush is just plain biased. And you are deflecting fom the argument.

Clinton was culpable for the Balkans. No doubt. Bush is culpable for so much more, so just admit it already and be done with this straying off the beaten path thing.

 

[GHook93]

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently? (I’m not talking about hindsight being 20/20. I’m talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, “Wow? You screwed up here. Didn’t it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?” - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bush’s decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.

If you talking hinder-sight, then you would say then we should have never went in to Iraq. But if the "let's get out of Iraq today" crowd will also have to look back in hindsight if it does happen and Iraq turns into a Rwanda like massacre and a genocidal civil war! Will you then look back in hindsight and say maybe the war was a mistake, but maybe we should have given the war effort a chance, while at least there was a glimpse of things working out!

 

[BrianH]

If people would look beyond the last 8 years before making their predictions, we would be alot better off. The fact is , (Republican or Democrat) the last 10 (at least) presidents were involved in some kind of conflict/war...many of which we were not attacked. Spanish-American War, Korea, Vietnam...I believe the latter two involved Democrat presidents. (Just for FYI). I'm not saying that I'm a staunch republican, but I tend to lean more conservative than I do liberal, however, I see alot of finger-pointing going on in these forums and it makes me laugh. I don't really know who to respond to. Do I respond to the hard-core republicans? Or do I respond to the liberal-Dems? Either way is interesting.
Bush is not the first president to get involved in this kind of situation. We're still in Korea (I wonder how much money has been spent, we've been there for around 60 years.) We still have troops in the Balkans. As much as you would like to scorn Bush and hate the war, just remember that this isn't the first time that this has happened, and not nearly all of the presidents were republican. And for you Dems out there, remember, it was the Democrats that succeeded from the Union, spurring the Civil War. (FYI).

You know what? I think I am a staunch republican