Didn't he stick his finger in the ****.

Apparently that word can't be used. Holland can flood next time.

Dolts don't get to just pull the triggers. No sometimes folks with agendas trick the doltlike manchildren who have been put into office beleiving they are smart to act on their own accord to pull the triger. Bush\Obama not much difference.

National leaders use that level of vitriol almost as much as Cbid forum members.
This conversation can begin and end with how the Tea Party has been portrayed by the dems and thier followers.

As for "common sense"??
Not so fast, exlax. As has been stated many times before, even the previous administration felt Saddam had WMDs, using the same intel without a need to twist the facts nor arrive at a preconceived conclusion. And Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the US and the UN for over a decade with those flimsy resolutions that he continuously ignored.
And don't even mention those "inspections". Those were a joke plain and simple.

The reason that Dubya acted and Clinton didn't is simply a matter of timing (pre and post 9/11). America wasn't ready to pre-emptively attack anyone prior to that day.


To be clear, we're not debating the merit of the war as seen from 2011.
I just want to know how you "knew" things that two Presidents, all of Congress, and most of the UN felt were facts.

It wasn't a sell job. Or, if it were, it had been going on for several years before Bush even took office.

Bush is the President that invaded Iraq, and the one thing I do give him credit for is holding himself accountable for his own actions.

And it was clearly a sell job. Prior Prez's were not trying to justify an invasion.

Not even close.
As stated previously, it was simply a matter of timing.

All that aside it matters not. We are there, and the Big O isn't doing us any favors.

Bill Clinton had to sell the no-fly zone. That took a lot of material and money. There had to be a valid threat.

Obama should fund a solar powered high speed rail between Bagdad and Tikrit.

TG there was a group that wanted to invade and were waiting for the right window to open. Everything is a matter of timing. I do not think you can assume any other Pres. would have invaded. That is purely hypothetical. The fact is one did, with no more provokation from Iraq than those done in previous admins.

It was a sell job pure and simple. Not tied directly to 911 or anything else. 911 was used as part of the sell.

continue to sell the no fly zone.

I am a hypocrit though. I was pissed when daddy bush stipped short.

So on one hand you call Bush a "dolt"
And on the other he was able to use a "sell job" to put america to war.

bravo.
That's brilliant.😕

The game is afoot!



(Reuters) - Brent oil prices surged to near 2-1/2 year highs on Wednesday as fresh tensions between Israel and Iran added to markets already on edge over spreading unrest in the Middle East.

Israel's Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said two Iranian warships planned to sail through the Suez canal en route to Syria and called the move a "provocation", sending up prices in morning U.S. trade.

I believe that is the same strategy that President Palin will use to invade Taiwan.

Actually tg if you read above... I do think he is a dolt and question his decision making process. However I do admire his admins ability to operationalize things (right or wrong agenda aside). He had people that were great at that. Much better than the Clinton or Big O group.

I suspect Obama thinks foreign affairs are screwing British chicks.

The Bush Admin was able to operationalize more of their ideas than most Admins. I am actually glad the Os are not showing that ability as of yet. When the Bushies came in there was a very quick sea change compared to when the Clintonites or Big Os came in. It was actually pretty amazing.

Brittish chicks have bad teeth and are stinky south of the border.

One other thing that sometimes bothers me when discussing the "bush lied" point of view:

Why would he have lied?

Let's take "revenge for daddy" off the table.
So it must be for Oil? But how much of our oil comes from Iraq right now? And why are oil prices so high? Would the worlds oil reserve and speculative pricing be higher or lower if Saddam were still around? I think it wouldn't matter either way, but I'm willing to listen to reason.
It wasn't to gain a strong hold in the Middle East. Or we could have chosen more wisely. A nation that wasn't strife with century old religious fueds, or bands of tribes that would reject a democracy.

So I'd like to hear WHY we went to war with Iraq, if it's not because he was indeed a threat. WMD or not.