Obama has the lowest approval ever

[cheeno]

Mitch[/color]]More than half the country wanted us to go to war. And now, those same people are bashing that decision. And the Intel I assume, was Iraq had WMD. Bush was just in a bad spot being President for a few months when 9-11 happened. He was going to get reamed regardless the decision he made. It was a lose-lose for him.

all the liberals want us to fight in Afghanistan....now they want they hell out. Bush must haven knew Afghanistan isn't a war you could really win since none of the people like us.

Wow 5 star general there. To win a war you need people to like you.

Want us to bomb Iran? Like us on Facebook!

 

[Mitchrapp]

I certainly don't like kids dying in wars but I'm always siding with the 'lets go after this guy or hit that country hard" then 'lets sit back and see what happens and its not are problem'.

Paul O'Neill, he went against party line and spoke out, not just about this but everything else. So he was fired, I don't care what side you're on you don't do that. That's why people think he's an incompetent.

 

[lions2011]

all the liberals want us to fight in Afghanistan....now they want they hell out. Bush must haven knew Afghanistan isn't a war you could really win since none of the people like us.

Wow 5 star general there. To win a war you need people to like you.

Want us to bomb Iran? Like us on Facebook!

funny you mention Iran......Lieberman and Lindsay Graham came out yesterday and said that if Obama chooses a military option with Iran that he will have the blessing of both House and Senate.

 

[Michchamp]

Mitch[/color]]I certainly don't like kids dying in wars but I'm always siding with the 'lets go after this guy or hit that country hard" then 'lets sit back and see what happens and its not are problem'.

Paul O'Neill, he went against party line and spoke out, not just about this but everything else. So he was fired, I don't care what side you're on you don't do that. That's why people think he's an incompetent.

he didn't get fired for that, and he didn't speak out until he was forced out.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Until it gets all fk'd up and everyone will blame everyone else.

 

[martmay]

all the liberals want us to fight in Afghanistan....now they want they hell out. Bush must haven knew Afghanistan isn't a war you could really win since none of the people like us.

Wow 5 star general there. To win a war you need people to like you.

Want us to bomb Iran? Like us on Facebook!

when there shooting us in secured buildings execution style , Houston, you have a problem. Newsflash, Afghan's and Paki's don't care for us

 

[Mitchrapp]

Mitch[/color]]I certainly don't like kids dying in wars but I'm always siding with the 'lets go after this guy or hit that country hard" then 'lets sit back and see what happens and its not are problem'.

Paul O'Neill, he went against party line and spoke out, not just about this but everything else. So he was fired, I don't care what side you're on you don't do that. That's why people think he's an incompetent.

he didn't get fired for that, and he didn't speak out until he was forced out.

He got fired because of going against party lines/disagreements in public. Who wouldn't get fired for that. All administrations have differences but there are ways to go about it.

 

[redandguilty]

It is not being elitest to sat a US president present or former should not ever be allowed to be brought up on charges.

NO PRESIDENT EVER EVER EVER ACTS IN A VACCUUM. So fuck the hell off with all those stories about some loser nation wanting to arrest a president for war crimes. Riiiight!! Like that has never happened to any other president.

Cue violins for all you Bush haters.

Champ is an avowed elitest. He is no putz - I was just calling him names. Get over it - talking about his "war crimes" is just coffee house crap.

When I get the time, I hope to answer all the ignorant talk about how it was just Bush going after Saddam and Iraq. Believeing that crap is just another conspiracy theory. Like how he organized 9/11 just so he could go after them.

Sheesh! Do you guys ever read anything that isn't completely slanted? I'm starting to doubt it.

Great, because I'd love someone to tell my why the fuck our military men and women went to Iraq.

Well, Saddam was trying to get "weapons of mass destruction" for a very long time. He actually had tons of chemical weapons. For a decade or so, he played cat and mouse games with inspectors, but the inspectors were very effective and they eliminated something like 90% of his stockpiles. This wasn't out of the blue, Clinton rattled the saber over Saddam's WMD program too. This went on forever. Finally, he gave the inspectors the boot. People thought Saddam was pursuing WMD because he was. We just didn't know how much success, he was having. The inspectors thought he didn't have much they didn't know about, and they were probably right, but they didn't have access at the time, so nobody actually knew. To the Bush administration, that was enough to go to war. So, they made the strongest case they could showing the Saddam was trying and got Congress to pass authorization that didn't sound like authorization and also got the UN to pass a resolution that didn't sound like it was much of an authorization either. It wasn't a very strong case, but it's a very complicated issue and people get confused easily. People probably don't even agree on what a weapon of mass destruction is.

 

[deathroh]

Mitch[/color]]More than half the country wanted us to go to war. And now, those same people are bashing that decision....

What makes you think they are the same people?

 

[redandguilty]

There is a mountain of stuff here that some people would attribute to the Bush administration if you took the names and dates off it

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

[deathroh]

Great, because I'd love someone to tell my why the fuck our military men and women went to Iraq.

Well, Saddam was trying to get "weapons of mass destruction" for a very long time. He actually had tons of chemical weapons. For a decade or so, he played cat and mouse games with inspectors, but the inspectors were very effective and they eliminated something like 90% of his stockpiles. This wasn't out of the blue, Clinton rattled the saber over Saddam's WMD program too. This went on forever. Finally, he gave the inspectors the boot. People thought Saddam was pursuing WMD because he was. We just didn't know how much success, he was having. The inspectors thought he didn't have much they didn't know about, and they were probably right, but they didn't have access at the time, so nobody actually knew. To the Bush administration, that was enough to go to war. So, they made the strongest case they could showing the Saddam was trying and got Congress to pass authorization that didn't sound like authorization and also got the UN to pass a resolution that didn't sound like it was much of an authorization either. It wasn't a very strong case, but it's a very complicated issue and people get confused easily. People probably don't even agree on what a weapon of mass destruction is.

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

 

[Michchamp]

the whole WMD thing - even if it was true, and it WAS NOT - is no reason to invade another country.

 

[redandguilty]

Well, Saddam was trying to get "weapons of mass destruction" for a very long time. He actually had tons of chemical weapons. For a decade or so, he played cat and mouse games with inspectors, but the inspectors were very effective and they eliminated something like 90% of his stockpiles. This wasn't out of the blue, Clinton rattled the saber over Saddam's WMD program too. This went on forever. Finally, he gave the inspectors the boot. People thought Saddam was pursuing WMD because he was. We just didn't know how much success, he was having. The inspectors thought he didn't have much they didn't know about, and they were probably right, but they didn't have access at the time, so nobody actually knew. To the Bush administration, that was enough to go to war. So, they made the strongest case they could showing the Saddam was trying and got Congress to pass authorization that didn't sound like authorization and also got the UN to pass a resolution that didn't sound like it was much of an authorization either. It wasn't a very strong case, but it's a very complicated issue and people get confused easily. People probably don't even agree on what a weapon of mass destruction is.

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

I never thought we should have gone. I'm just frustrated by the "Bush lied" crowd acting like they had some excuse to be for the war back then.

 

[martmay]

the whole WMD thing - even if it was true, and it WAS NOT - is no reason to invade another country.

???

 

[Michchamp]

Well, Saddam was trying to get "weapons of mass destruction" for a very long time. He actually had tons of chemical weapons. For a decade or so, he played cat and mouse games with inspectors, but the inspectors were very effective and they eliminated something like 90% of his stockpiles. This wasn't out of the blue, Clinton rattled the saber over Saddam's WMD program too. This went on forever. Finally, he gave the inspectors the boot. People thought Saddam was pursuing WMD because he was. We just didn't know how much success, he was having. The inspectors thought he didn't have much they didn't know about, and they were probably right, but they didn't have access at the time, so nobody actually knew. To the Bush administration, that was enough to go to war. So, they made the strongest case they could showing the Saddam was trying and got Congress to pass authorization that didn't sound like authorization and also got the UN to pass a resolution that didn't sound like it was much of an authorization either. It wasn't a very strong case, but it's a very complicated issue and people get confused easily. People probably don't even agree on what a weapon of mass destruction is.

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

and applying Bush's logic consistently, we should have probably invaded a lot more countries who didn't like us, and either had WMD's, or nothing more than a desire to obtain them.

They all might be a threat.

*CUE SCARY MUSIC AND STOCK FOOTAGE OF MISSILES LAUNCHING, AND TERRORISTS TRAINING*

Red is totally convinced, even though he said in another thread that he opposed the Iraq War.

He's one of the few Americans that opposed it initially, then willingly embraced it after it became clear it was a total Cluster...

 

[redandguilty]

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

and applying Bush's logic consistently, we should have probably invaded a lot more countries who didn't like us, and either had WMD's, or nothing more than a desire to obtain them.

They all might be a threat.

*CUE SCARY MUSIC AND STOCK FOOTAGE OF MISSILES LAUNCHING, AND TERRORISTS TRAINING*

Red is totally convinced, even though he said in another thread that he opposed the Iraq War.

He's one of the few Americans that opposed it initially, then willingly embraced it after it became clear it was a total Cluster...

What are you talking about? I never embraced the war.

 

[martmay]

Don't you think there should have been risk of an imminent threat, more than "we think they might have WMD's" to bypass every option besides invading the country?

and applying Bush's logic consistently, we should have probably invaded a lot more countries who didn't like us, and either had WMD's, or nothing more than a desire to obtain them.

They all might be a threat.

*CUE SCARY MUSIC AND STOCK FOOTAGE OF MISSILES LAUNCHING, AND TERRORISTS TRAINING*

Red is totally convinced, even though he said in another thread that he opposed the Iraq War.

He's one of the few Americans that opposed it initially, then willingly embraced it after it became clear it was a total Cluster...

I take it your against the actions of the president in Lybia?

 

[redandguilty]

That Snopes link cites a 1998 poll saying 68% supported and 24% were against airstrikes deigned to remove Saddam from power rather than go the UN route. But where's that 68% now?

 

[cheeno]

and applying Bush's logic consistently, we should have probably invaded a lot more countries who didn't like us, and either had WMD's, or nothing more than a desire to obtain them.

They all might be a threat.

*CUE SCARY MUSIC AND STOCK FOOTAGE OF MISSILES LAUNCHING, AND TERRORISTS TRAINING*

Red is totally convinced, even though he said in another thread that he opposed the Iraq War.

He's one of the few Americans that opposed it initially, then willingly embraced it after it became clear it was a total Cluster...

I take it your against the actions of the president in Lybia?

I looked up Lybia but couldn't find it on a map.

 

[lions2011]

That Snopes link cites a 1998 poll saying 68% supported and 24% were against airstrikes deigned to remove Saddam from power rather than go the UN route. But where's that 68% now?

approval tends to go down when the body bags start arriving at Dover.