Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?
I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,
What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today. I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family. In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with.
What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack.
The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders. The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.
And thats why watching them fight and helping them kill each is a better option. Zionism is born out "getting out of town" and fleeing from real death and persecution. Most of your advice would apply to inner poor who are threatened EVERY DAY. Think they should just pick up and move too.. WHERE? You gonna help relocate 100000 Bad side of Chicago families?
HRpuf 11596444My question is this: Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.
Your question is based on at least two false premises:
(A) "Bush has been gone for seven years now". That statement is correct but is drastically incomplete. The results and effects of Bush's decision to kick peaceful UN inspectors out of Iraq as they were resolving the WMD issue with Iraq - led to much death destruction and turmoil in the ME. The aftershocks of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq are not gone and won't be gone for a century at least. Also Bush negotiated and approved the withdrawal plan just before leaving . That withdrawal plan did not become null and void when Bush left. It carried over for three years into his successor's presidency. Obama did not modify the gradual withdrawal of troops - he stuck with the Bush and Iraqi intent for withdrawal pace and complete withdrawal.
(B) "When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions?" There is no indication from me or many Obama supporters that we believe Obama does not have to take responsibility for his own actions or inactions. Look to my recent conversations here with Boss and Darkwind. They are both attributing Obama inaction (not keeping troops in Iraq after 2011 without legal immunity) as the cause of the rise of ISIS. We all know ISIS was formed in 2006 as an offshoot of AQI which only entered Iraq as a result of Bush's dumb invasion of Iraq in 2003. That is not simple knee jerk "blaming Bush" it is pointing out the absurdities and deficiencies in right wings knee jerk attempts to blame everything bad that happens in Iraq on Obama and paint Bush as the decider and presider over a great idea to commit the U.S. to war that was not necessary.
Why would it ever end? Bush blaming his predecessors until the end of his presidency, why isn't Obama afforded that same opportunity? Is there a statute of limitations?My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.
I disagree with you. My recollection is both parties blame the previous opposition party with somewhat equal fervor when the current president is a member of their party. The left defends Obama and blames Bush; the right defended Bush and blamed Clinton; the left defended Clinton and blamed Reagan and Bush41; the right defended Reagan and Bush41 and blamed Carter.Why would it ever end? Bush blaming his predecessors until the end of his presidency, why isn't Obama afforded that same opportunity? Is there a statute of limitations?My question is this:
Bush has been gone for seven years now. When does the Bush blame game end and when does President Obama have to take some responsibility for his own actions? It seems to me that the Obama supporters are all too willing to relive the Bush Presidency and give Obama a pass on everything.
First, thank you for your thoughtful response. While Bush was no Truman, Obama believers has taken blaming the predecessor to a whole new level. But that is not what troubles me most. What troubles me is that we, as a nation, are more polarized than in any time that I can remember. Ardent believers on both sides can no longer have a civil conversation about philosophy or policy without ultimately needing to place blame rather than pursue a solution. And eventually the argument comes down to the one willing to call the other a name the loudest. Which means nothing is solved and neither side comes away with more understanding than when the conversation began. It seems to me that if there was a little more give on both sides, rather than blame, the our problems would not be so insurmountable.
Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people.
Seriously. Fuck you.
You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution.
You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.
Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!
That is the role of the president.
Congress can only declare war and fund the military.
And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.
You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.
Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.
And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.
But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.
You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.
No. He began the process. He didn't merely pull up the tent pegs and just get out. Unlike Obumbler, W understood the necessity of the status of forces agreements and the need for timing and staging.
No answer ...??Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution.
You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.
Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!
That is the role of the president.
Congress can only declare war and fund the military.
And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.
You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.
Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.
And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.
But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.
You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.
You copied & pasted the parts from the Constitution which prove I was right and you were wrong. Were you hoping no one would notice?
I said the Constitution grants the president to send troops into war and the Congress the power to declare war and fund the military.
You said that was the dumbest thing you read that day from a Liberal, but then you proved me right when you posted the relevant portions from the Constitution. Furthermore, your initial claim was that Congress can send troops into war -- which is not supported by the Constitution. You seem to recognize that since you changed your original claim to one that requires both the Congress and the president.
Yet no apology from you for being so friggin' ignorant about the Constitution you suggested I needed to read?
Are you not a man of character who admits when he's so blatantly wrong?
Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence.
actually I think it was Ronald Reagan created all this mess. here we see the movie Charlie Wilson's War?I don't make a habit out of reading left-wing rants online but every now and then something will emerge that catches my attention. Mostly because it keeps being repeated in the echo chamber of liberal America and eventually the meme pops up on your Facebook page. Apparently, one of the latest memes from Liberalmania is that Bush caused ISIS.
I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.
You were repeatedly warned of the dangers in ignoring the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, and you would have no part of it. Nothing was going to do until you ended the war and destroyed Bush. So we abandoned the War on Terror, we abandoned the few people over there who were helping us build democracy and restore peace, and we moved toward your policies of appeasement and diplomacy. Now we're paying the price for not eliminating the threat when we had the chance.
Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.
Radical Islam is not a joke. It wasn't something to take lightly. It certainly wasn't something that should have been turned into a political football for the purpose of bringing down a president. But.... that's our history in this country! We are constantly following the liberal heart and then having to pay the price in the end with more loss of life and greater wars.
isn't that how we got into Vietnam? when I was growing up they always taught us it wasn't a war.is that how the president at the time got us into that conflict and got around a rule that you're talking about?No answer ...??Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.
Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!
That is the role of the president.
Congress can only declare war and fund the military.
And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.
You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.
Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.
And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.
But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.
You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.
You copied & pasted the parts from the Constitution which prove I was right and you were wrong. Were you hoping no one would notice?
I said the Constitution grants the president to send troops into war and the Congress the power to declare war and fund the military.
You said that was the dumbest thing you read that day from a Liberal, but then you proved me right when you posted the relevant portions from the Constitution. Furthermore, your initial claim was that Congress can send troops into war -- which is not supported by the Constitution. You seem to recognize that since you changed your original claim to one that requires both the Congress and the president.
Yet no apology from you for being so friggin' ignorant about the Constitution you suggested I needed to read?
Are you not a man of character who admits when he's so blatantly wrong?
I wasn't blatantly wrong, you're still an idiot and that is still the stupidest thing said by a liberal in this thread.
The president can't very well "send" troops anywhere with no funding.... is he to transport them on Air Force One? And if he is going to send them to a war it better be one approved by Congress under the Constitutional provision empowering Congress to declare wars. Now you can twist semantics of the Constitution and pretend you were right and I was wrong if that makes you feel better.
The point you made about the president doesn't have to send them if Congress declares war is irrelevant here, we are not talking about such a bizarre and unrealistic scenario which has never happened and never will. This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.
This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.
Well I don't know why the Bush family would be compelled to make ANY claims about Iraq to be honest. Would there be any significant reason for that? Bush didn't give a shit what YOU thought about it then and I'm sure he cares even less now. He did what he thought was best, he had full authorization from Congress to do it. The plan implemented in Iraq was a matter of US foreign policy before he took office. Why would he need to defend something the 1998 Congress came up with?
The 1998 law didn't authorize him to go to war. The 2002 resolution did that, but only if there was proof that there were weapons and all other diplomatic attempts to resolve had failed.
I'm sure that he did do what he thought was best. Unfortunately, he ignored the TRAINED MILITARY MEN who told him it was a bad idea.
Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama and the liberal left. We pulled the troops out before the status of forces in Iraq were sufficient to defend the country and now there will be a consequence. We stopped trying to kill the terrorists and started trying to negotiate with them and now we'll pay the price. That's how things in the real universe work.
Guy, the problem was not that we didn't leave 11,000 troops in Iraq, they wouldn't have made a difference.
The reason why Iraq collapsed is because Maliki stole the money meant to go to his troops and sent it to his cronies, and alienated the Sunnis to the point they no longer wanted to play.
In the real universe, you don't win by "killing the terrorists". You win by making things tolerable enough to where they put their gun in the garage and go back to a normal life.
Now, if you thinking that my mocking your inability to think like a rational person and your devotion to ignorant and factually inaccurate propaganda is somehow me "conceding" to you... knock your retarded self out! Like the Bush family, I really don't give two shits what you think.
Well, the Bush Crime Family is chocking on Iraq now. It's hilarious to watch Jeb try to talk his way out of it.
Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to. Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later.
A status of forces agreement together with other properly negotiated agreements could have served the purpose far better than Obumbler's simple minded "get up and just leave" solution.
And try to face reality. There is not a chance in God's universe that we would permit the Iraq "government" to put any of our servicemen or service women on any trial (other than for possibly the alleged commission of some actual crime).
Great, thanks for showing you have no honor and no character. You posted relevant sections of the Constitution which echoed exactly what I said, yet here you are claimi g what I said was the dumbest thing you've seen a Liberal post -- yet this Liberal is schooling you on the Constitution.No answer ...??Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.
Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.
Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!
That is the role of the president.
Congress can only declare war and fund the military.
And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.
You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.
Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.
And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.
But let's get back to where this sidebar started... Congress (you say) was lied to by Bush to authorize his use of force... so why didn't Congress repeal what they voted for? Why did Congress continue to fund the war? That's the part that hangs you by your britches on this... IF BUSH LIED, why did Congress not repeal the authorization, halt the funding and call for articles of impeachment on Bush for lying to Congress? Not only did none of that happen, pretty much the opposite happened... they funded everything, they approved additional funding, they sent more troops when requested, and Bush won re-election.
You see, the dirty little secret here is, only a very small minority of radical liberals were anit-Iraq/anti-war. They were very loud and proud but simply didn't have the numbers to prevent us going to war. Once at war, we encountered high casualties in Fallujah, and the public began to turn on the war. Eventually the radicals gained enough support to become politically effective but the damage was already done. So you trotted out Obama with his promises to end the wars and close Gitmo... completely abandon everything we've done the past decade and embark on a liberal "apology tour" around the world. We've now done that for 8 years, with the exception of closing Gitmo which you discovered wasn't as easy as you thought, and the result is ISIS and a stronger presence of radical Islam than ever before.
You copied & pasted the parts from the Constitution which prove I was right and you were wrong. Were you hoping no one would notice?
I said the Constitution grants the president to send troops into war and the Congress the power to declare war and fund the military.
You said that was the dumbest thing you read that day from a Liberal, but then you proved me right when you posted the relevant portions from the Constitution. Furthermore, your initial claim was that Congress can send troops into war -- which is not supported by the Constitution. You seem to recognize that since you changed your original claim to one that requires both the Congress and the president.
Yet no apology from you for being so friggin' ignorant about the Constitution you suggested I needed to read?
Are you not a man of character who admits when he's so blatantly wrong?
I wasn't blatantly wrong, you're still an idiot and that is still the stupidest thing said by a liberal in this thread.
The president can't very well "send" troops anywhere with no funding.... is he to transport them on Air Force One? And if he is going to send them to a war it better be one approved by Congress under the Constitutional provision empowering Congress to declare wars. Now you can twist semantics of the Constitution and pretend you were right and I was wrong if that makes you feel better.
The point you made about the president doesn't have to send them if Congress declares war is irrelevant here, we are not talking about such a bizarre and unrealistic scenario which has never happened and never will. This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.
Boss 11602449This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.
How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.
Cut off funds for troops while they're in battle?? What kind of American-hating fucking traitor are you?? Who the fuck cuts funding for troops while they're in battle?Boss 11602449This whole sidebar argument started over MY point that Congress could have halted the Iraq War any time they felt so compelled and they did nothing.
How could Congress realistically stop the dumb war that Bush started? Bush told Congress in March 2003 that the reason for Americans dying in Iraq and Americans killing Iraqis was to find WMD that was alleged to be hidden from UN inspectors. It was almost two years of war before Bush admitted the WMD was not there. By then the "you broke It you bought it" rule kicked in and by then Al Qaeda moved into Iraq and the war to find WMD was over. By 2005 it became a war to keep terrorists from taking control of Iraq as well as trying to figure out how to bring Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together to produce a viable government and a properly developed army and police force. Bush never figured the latter out but set the end of his entirely dumb war by the end of 2011.
Well congress could have simply stopped funding the war and the troops would have to come back home. Then Democrat leaders hold a vote on articles of impeachment for lying to Congress.
Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.
Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy. In the hopes that planting democracy over there would eventually help to defeat radical Islam. Defeating an ideology with a better ideology through hearts and minds as opposed to guns and bayonets.
The drawback to the plan is that many radical Islamist followers don't like it too much! They don't want their ideology defeated! So they are trying everything possible to destroy our plan and of course, along with liberal democrats and the Obama administration, they are doing a bang-up job of that!
Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.
