Iraq: The Bush Legacy

Authorizing the use of force if negotions failed was giving Bush a tool to use in the negotiations. Use of that force while negotions were going on was Bush's decision and only his decision. Read the resolution!

 

politics has never been a particularly polite sport.... I thought you knew that.

 

Who invaded Iraq; was it Obama or Bush? Who instigated that disastrous fiasco disaster, was it Obama or Bush? Who sent thousands of Americans to die for nothing? Was it Obama or Bush? Who utterly destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and killed tens of thousands of her civilians in the process? Is it sinking in now?
But it's all Obama's fault, apparently...and you have the gall to whine about accepting responsibility?

 

[video=youtube;tLteUGkvpOc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tLteUGkvpOc[/video]

That's weird.. Biden seems to think that Iraq is one of Obama's administration greatest achievement

 

Your politicians aren't exactly noted for their wisdom. We love them over here-especially when we need a good belly-laugh. You, America collectively, along with your poodle Blair, screwed-up royally. And do you want to know the best laugh-they made Blair Middle East 'Peace Envoy'! You couldn't make it up...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dle-East-is-a-sorry-one-its-time-he-quit.html

 

As Yosh Shmenge pointed out, that didn't happen, so your hypothetical fantasy isn't worth the bandwidth it's posted on. Democrats authorized the use of force the same way Democrats helped pass the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Even more interesting (and amusing), despite their bleating about the war in Iraq, Democrats are getting ready to nominate a woman for president who supported the war in Iraq.

And your throwaway claims don't refute the fact that Democrats voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Bill Clinton launched military attacks on Iraq and signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which passed both houses of Congress by overwhelming majorities (not party-line votes).

I never claimed that AQ was in Iraq prior to 2003, so there's no need to pile that falsehood on top of the other fabrications in your post.

 

I'm sorry that it gets your goat but
I'm merely referring to the all the democrat members of congress that gave Bush the authority to act in Iraq. That's historical fact!

 

You all screwed-up; left and right. America's collosal (*)(*)(*)(*)-up is going down in history as the worst foreign policy blunder of all time.

 

We all know it was Bush that started the war. We also know the Democrats who voted for it. But you Libs just flat out refuse to admit that if Iraq falls, it will be Obama who will have to take a lot of responsibility for it happening. . You wanted the credit when Iraq was doing fine, but now you want to pretend this administration is innocent of the trouble they are having now. Your like Obama where the buck never stops here.

 

[video=youtube;3Is45Jwqizc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc[/video]

That's why we call Obama the rodeo clown

 

I think I can honestly agree with that.

 

republicans in congress were nearly unanimous in their support for the use of force resolution whereas a majority of democrats in congress voted against it.

That's historical fact. A majority of the elected democrats in our government at the time were against the use of force.

Another historical fact is that one man and one man alone decided to commit troops to battle. One man and one man alone decided that all other options had been exhausted and made the call to invade/conquer/occupy Iraq... and that man was not a democrat. And all the events that have followed as a result of that decision being made are the direct responsibility of the man who made it.

 

and I, for one, have NEVER thought that "Iraq was doing fine". It has been a goat rope since day one, and, imho, Obama should have pulled our boys out of there AND Afghanistan the day he took office. Staying there until the Bush created pullback date or staying there for twenty more years was not going to make sunnis and shiites learn how to sing Kumbaya together any better. It was always a matter of WHEN they'd start killing one another again..... never IF.

 

Trivial compared to Vietnam at least in terms of lives lost. And in terms of unadulterated inhumanity there was always the Inquisition (Followed by the Holocaust).

 

Okay. Suddenly the new bar for arguing is that a majority of democrats were against going into Iraq under Bush whereas I merely said that dems should take responsibility for their part, whatever that may be, in getting us there also (by the way...58% of Senate democrats is a majority of the senate).

I was baffled by the rush to attack Iraq and I am not here to save George Bush's legacy. Neither am I here to absolve hypocritical democrats of their authorization to give that one man
the authority to commit us to war.

Like many other partisan leftists you seem unable to accept your own culpability in the Iraq mess.

 

It was Bush's war 100%. That's the judgement of history.

And it is the ultimate condemnation of the parochial jingoistic far right wing foreign policy ideology, the failure of which is being played out right now.

Not one of you would be willing to support a full scale military invasion of Iraq to prop up the government your hero installed in Baghdad.

That make you all hypocrites.

We know better, and we told you so. Now we're seeing living proof of it.

 

Do you know who said this in 2004?

Hillary Clinton, who voted in favor of that resolution ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/

And regarding the excuse of MDW ...

 

LoL Obama campaigned on Iraq in 2012, are you high?

Now that it's a complete failure you're desperate to throw it back on bush, who hasn't been in charge in 5 years.

Pathetic.

 

Actually, the surge never worked. It was only a temporary fix. The surge was actually a delay. Which is exactly what Al Qaeda needed to make it appear the surge in fact worked. In other words, time was the weapon of choice for Al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam Hussein did a better job of keeping Al Qaeda out, than our own military. When he ruled, he had Al Qaeda at bay. At the time of Saddams rule, Sunni's and Shiites were pretty quiet with each other. But when we went in, that opened the big can of worms for Al Qaeda once Saddam's government fell.

As for SOFA, it was actually his worst policy move and the most heinous. Having sent us to war under false pretenses that WMD's were there and were not, while actually finding out himself before we went in that they were not applicable, (aluminum tubes), (Hubris), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbey4hPlrX0, he then tries to set a policy where by some of our troops would stay. WHY? For the same reason he went there to begin with; for the free flow of oil. After sacrificing thousands of American lives for a lie, he was all for doing it so more by leaving forces there. That to me is the scandal and crime of the century to have our troops stay for a war that was created by the need for free flowing oil for the oil producing industrial complex. And to think that our men and women who died, were lied to from the very beginning. It makes me puke. The man and that phony oil tycoon excuse for a vice president should be tried for war crimes to our own people.

 

Why are you baffled by the rush to start the war. The United Nations Inspectors were unable to find any WMDs and the only place they hadn't searched was Saddam's palaces. This was being negotiated at the time and had Saddam given in and no weapons found the total rational for the war would have crumbled. It was therefor imperative to get the inspectors out of Iraq and get the war started before negotiations to search the palaces could be concluded.

If you read the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, force was to be used only if talks had broken down or failed. We ended the talks and rushed into the war because had talks continued and the inspections continued the people of the US probably might have realized that the reason Blick and his team could find no weapons was that there weren't any. Selling the war to get rid of Saddam probably would not have worked well sine he was no threat to the US.

 

At least, at this point of the discussion I guess that "expatriate" will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she will run for the Presidency ...

 

That it was. It was Bush's war to win and Obama's war to lose.

 

Iraq's oil production during the Bush war years was at an all time low..

If the war was for oil those NeoCons were dumber than dirt.

 

Hilarious. The "anti-war" peaceniks who write the material for the puppet shows at ANSWER rallies should give you a call, snake.

 

It's hard to keep oil flowing at full capacity when bullets are flying and the opposition is sabotaging oil wells. Neo-cons maybe dumb, but even a dummy knows sometimes you have to be patient.