Political history being re wrote as we watch

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Funny that you cast the blame on Clinton for the 1993 bombing of the WTC when it was mere days, not months into his Presidency. Nor did he recieve a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the USA". Nor did he stop and blame President Bush(41) either. Furthermore you credit President Bush with stopping terrorist attack on US soil and then list 5 terrorist attacks that occurred under Clinton that were on foriegn soil? You also failed to mention that many of the counter terrorism incentives proposed by President Clinton were fought with an alliance of the ACLU and Republican in Congress.

President Clinton did more to fight Terrorism that any President before him.

When did the Bush Administration finally take up the question of international terrorism? I recall that the Bush team regarded Star-War Missile defense as the way to protect America from Rogue Nations, well until 9-11 that is.....

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:

US missed three chances to seize Bin Laden
The Sunday Times of London 01/06/2002

PRESIDENT Bill Clinton turned down at least three offers involving foreign governments to help to seize Osama Bin Laden after he was identified as a terrorist who was threatening America, according to sources in Washington and the Middle East.

Clinton himself, according to one Washington source, has described the refusal to accept the first of the offers as "the biggest mistake" of his presidency.

The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism.

When Sudanese officials claimed late last year that Washington had spurned Bin Laden's secret extradition from Khartoum in 1996, former White House officials said they had no recollection of the offer. Senior sources in the former administration now confirm that it was true.

An Insight investigation has revealed that far from being an isolated incident this was the first in a series of missed opportunities right up to Clinton's last year in office. One of these involved a Gulf state; another would have relied on the assistance of Saudi Arabia.

In early 1996 America was putting strong pressure on Sudan's Islamic government to expel Bin Laden, who had been living there since 1991. Sources now reveal that Khartoum sent a former intelligence officer with Central Intelligence Agency connections to Washington with an offer to hand over Bin Laden — just as it had put another terrorist, Carlos the Jackal, into French hands in 1994.

At the time the State Department was describing Bin Laden as "the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world" and was accusing Sudan of harbouring terrorists. The extradition offer was turned down, however. A former senior White House source said: "There simply was not the evidence to prosecute Osama Bin Laden. He could not be indicted, so it would serve no purpose for him to have been brought into US custody."

A former figure in American counterterrorist intelligence claims, however, that there was "clear and convincing" proof of Bin Laden's conspiracy against America. In May, 1996, American diplomats were informed in a Sudanese government fax that Bin Laden was about to be expelled — giving Washington another chance to seize him. The decision not to do so went to the very top of the White House, according to former administration sources.

They say that the clear focus of American policy was to discourage the state sponsorship of terrorism. So persuading Khartoum to expel Bin Laden was in itself counted as a clear victory. The administration was "delighted".

Bin Laden took off from Khartoum on May 18 in a chartered C-130 plane with 150 of his followers, including his wives. He was bound for Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. On the way the plane refuelled in the Gulf state of Qatar, which has friendly relations with Washington, but he was allowed to proceed unhindered.

Barely a month later, on June 25, a 5,000lb truck bomb ripped apart the front of Khobar Towers, a US military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion killed 19 American servicemen. Bin Laden was immediately suspected.

Clinton is reported to have admitted how things went wrong in Sudan at a private dinner at a Manhattan restaurant shortly after September 11 last year. According to a witness, Clinton told a dinner companion that the decision to let Bin Laden go was probably "the biggest mistake of my presidency".

Clinton and Terrorism

Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

You are going to use an "opinion" site as your source over journalism? Are you kidding me? This is a joke right? Why not use "Yahoo answers" as your factual source base, and tell me that you are pulling from reliable credible source?

The WTC bombing still happened under Clinton's watch and the fact Clinton allowed so many terrorist attacks to happen that killed American lives, doesn't speak well to his policies on fighting terrorism and protecting the citizens of the United States. I dont recall the same plagues of attacks under GWB after 9-11.

(and if by your responce, you still blame GWB for the current state of this economy . . . that's pretty pathetic)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

JRK, that is your opinion and you're welcome to it. Your own link gives a reasonable rebuttal to that opinion. My opinion is that it not only violated the UN's Charter or Mission Statement, but also destroyed the international response to aggression precident President Bush(41) help set by insisting on getting the UNSC behind the effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait. Iraq was not a significant threat to the USA. Nothing we've found during the invasion or occupation has changed that. Iraq was not involved in the 9-11 attack. Those were the criteria set in the 02 resolution for military action. The conditions Congress set were not met. Congress did nothing about it. They should have all resigned. They disgraced America.

The mistake was made when we trusted the UN
I keep going back top what Blix said in 03 and it threw every-one for a loop
Boo the UN has only one place in this event, it was there lack of being able to provide certain enforcement that caused us to invade as was mandated by the US congress

Let me ask you a question, do you take the other 50 or so countries that either put boots on the ground or supported out invasion, do there leaders go to jail also?
if not whats the difference?

The US had no legal or moral right to enforce the UN mandate.

To do so violated international law, making bush et all war criminals.

The United Nations is worthless when it comes to enforcement. The real crimes were uncovered by the Oil for Food cover-up that the UN Security General Kofi Annan, and his deputy was involved in. You can't allow a corrupt led organization, who were following their own self interests, to enforce a UN mandate on Iraq. Are you kidding me? That would be like Barrack Obama saying he supports a restructuring of financial campaign contributions, when he is already profitting a lot more by ignoring them.

There was a time the League of Nations (before it was called the United Nations) were formed with a purpose to prevent Germany from rising up to become a major threat once again. There were others I'm sure that felt "no other nation had a moral right to enforce the mandates" under the League of Nations. As a result of allowing the League of Nations to handle the sole "watchdog" responsibility, Germany fired the first shot in a Poland port thereby starting World War II. The first shot of World War II in Europe was fired 20 years, 9 months, 19 days and 18 hours after the last shot of World War I was fired.

Are you now going to respond by saying how "credible" the United Nations actually is with enforcement?

A September report faults UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, his deputy, and the UN Security Council for allowing Saddam Hussein to graft over $1 billion from the humanitarian operation. The committee’s January briefing paper charged UN management of the oil-for-food “operated in an ineffective, wasteful, and unsatisfactory manner,” leading to some $5 million in documented contractor overpayments, and “undoubtedly much higher” losses not discovered by the limited UN audits. The February interim report found the program’s procurement office did not follow established rules “designed to assure fairness and accountability.” It also accused the former head of the program, Benon Sevan, of an “irreconcilable conflict of interest” because he helped a company owned by a friend obtain valuable contracts to sell Iraqi oil.

What are the details of the CIA report?
The September 30, 2004, report by Iraq weapons inspector Charles Duelfer uncovered the regime’s complicated and lucrative schemes to earn illicit funds. In a particularly egregious abuse, Saddam was found to be using secret “oil vouchers” worth millions of dollars to reward individuals and companies for helping Iraq subvert sanctions. Among the alleged recipients of the vouchers was Sevan, the program’s chief administrator.

http://www.cfr.org/un/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, by following this philosophy of buring their heads in the sand and saying it's someone else's responsibility? Looks like you much rather believe in a 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' form of United States involvement to any possible threat on international issues?

 

[JRK]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, by following this philosophy of buring their heads in the sand and saying it's someone else's responsibility? Looks like you much rather believe in a 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' form of United States involvement to any possible threat on international issues?

Exactly. The information we had in Jan of 2003 was allot different than Jan of 2004, Taking chances got 4000 people killed on 9-11-2001
Obama and his legacy did get OBL, but it also has stated that at one time he was going to begin to have conversations with those kooks.

 

[JRK]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, by following this philosophy of buring their heads in the sand and saying it's someone else's responsibility? Looks like you much rather believe in a 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil' form of United States involvement to any possible threat on international issues?

Exactly. The information we had in Jan of 2003 was allot different than Jan of 2004, Taking chances got 4000 people killed on 9-11-2001
Obama and his legacy did get OBL, but it also has stated that at one time he was going to begin to have conversations with those kooks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, . . .

Immaterial to the OP, and an area in which the Bush admin wussed out. I hope the Obama admin does far better. The assassination of Iraqi scientists seems to be slowing matters down.

 

[BlindBoo]

Mere days? I bet you still like to place blame for this current state of the economy, on Bush and the Republicans after three years don't you? So don't give me this mere days crap! This bombing of the World Trade Center happened on who's watch? If Clinton did such a fantasic job in fighting terrorism, why are there more reports of terrorist attacks that followed the 1993 Trade Center bombings than can be found after 9-11? (facts "supported" under my last post) Looks like the only thing your beloved Clinton was concerned about was covering his own ass with Monica Lewinski.

I do however, see the GREAT "success" these counter terrorism incentives you mentioned actually had, please read:


Try including some facts when you make a statement next time, that way you won't look like someone who simply enjoys rambling about a subject you obviously know nothing about.

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

You are going to use an "opinion" site as your source over journalism? Are you kidding me? This is a joke right? Why not use "Yahoo answers" as your factual source base, and tell me that you are pulling from reliable credible source?

The WTC bombing still happened under Clinton's watch and the fact Clinton allowed so many terrorist attacks to happen that killed American lives, doesn't speak well to his policies on fighting terrorism and protecting the citizens of the United States. I dont recall the same plagues of attacks under GWB after 9-11.

(and if by your responce, you still blame GWB for the current state of this economy . . . that's pretty pathetic)

FactCheck.org is an Opinion site? Yeah that's why they include a reference section to site the original sources. But I understand attacking a publications reputation is a tactic used to denigrate the message, but you fail. That you would rather believe an operative of the Sudan over an American Preisdent says alot about your partisanship.

9-11 still happened because President Bush was asleep at the wheel nearly 8 months into his presidency. Especially after the PDB on Aug 6ht 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Detremined to Strike In US".

I don't recall mentioning the state of the economy in this threat?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK still cannot answer the narrative crafted above by me that will competently describe Bush's weaknesses. That will be his history, generally, not JRKs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice attempt at diversion and denigration. The economy is a different subject. The first WTC bombing happen less than a month after Slick took office........

FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?

You are going to use an "opinion" site as your source over journalism? Are you kidding me? This is a joke right? Why not use "Yahoo answers" as your factual source base, and tell me that you are pulling from reliable credible source?

The WTC bombing still happened under Clinton's watch and the fact Clinton allowed so many terrorist attacks to happen that killed American lives, doesn't speak well to his policies on fighting terrorism and protecting the citizens of the United States. I dont recall the same plagues of attacks under GWB after 9-11.

(and if by your responce, you still blame GWB for the current state of this economy . . . that's pretty pathetic)

FactCheck.org is an Opinion site? Yeah that's why they include a reference section to site the original sources. But I understand attacking a publications reputation is a tactic used to denigrate the message, but you fail. That you would rather believe an operative of the Sudan over an American Preisdent says alot about your partisanship.

9-11 still happened because President Bush was asleep at the wheel nearly 8 months into his presidency. Especially after the PDB on Aug 6ht 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Detremined to Strike In US".

I don't recall mentioning the state of the economy in this threat?

shakles is on bad ground, he knows it, and is doing a worse job of trying to retrench it. Fail.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You are going to use an "opinion" site as your source over journalism? Are you kidding me? This is a joke right? Why not use "Yahoo answers" as your factual source base, and tell me that you are pulling from reliable credible source?

The WTC bombing still happened under Clinton's watch and the fact Clinton allowed so many terrorist attacks to happen that killed American lives, doesn't speak well to his policies on fighting terrorism and protecting the citizens of the United States. I dont recall the same plagues of attacks under GWB after 9-11.

(and if by your responce, you still blame GWB for the current state of this economy . . . that's pretty pathetic)

FactCheck.org is an Opinion site? Yeah that's why they include a reference section to site the original sources. But I understand attacking a publications reputation is a tactic used to denigrate the message, but you fail. That you would rather believe an operative of the Sudan over an American Preisdent says alot about your partisanship.

9-11 still happened because President Bush was asleep at the wheel nearly 8 months into his presidency. Especially after the PDB on Aug 6ht 2001, entitled "Bin Laden Detremined to Strike In US".

I don't recall mentioning the state of the economy in this threat?

shakles is on bad ground, he knows it, and is doing a worse job of trying to retrench it. Fail.

I've stated FACTS through dates that prove Clinton allowed for attacks to continue on his watch, and failed to protect Americans nor the troops on his watch. I can find the same question and answer "opinions" through yahoo or wikipedia. For example: some 'claim' president Clinton had a legitimiate national debt surplus and then other actual sources say he used social security and other means to give that very "appearance" of surplus. I don't see a Q&A board as a legitimite source, sorry. Try using a Q&A site for a research paper and see how far you get. I believe you can do a lot better than that. Why are you so afraid of providing a newspaper link or media source to back up your claim? Are you simply unable to, so you just default to this? I would rather not use a Q&A opinion to support "alligations", and I certainly wouldn't be afraid of adding legitimate news sources to back up my claims. Including any unsupported opinions about President Bush prior to 9-11. However if that's the only link you can provide to defend your argument, I completely understand.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

JRK, that is what you want to believe, but history will follow my outline, not yours.

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, . . .

Immaterial to the OP, and an area in which the Bush admin wussed out. I hope the Obama admin does far better. The assassination of Iraqi scientists seems to be slowing matters down.

So Bush was wrong at going after Iraq when the "corrupt self interest" United Nations failed enforce any of their resolutions against Saddam Husseign?

Administration Makes Case Against Iraq
ABC News, Sept 12

Ahead of the president's speech, the White House released this document. It was assembled by the National Security Council, and served as the basis and background for the president's speech. The text of the document follows:

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalog all of the violations of U.N. resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the United Nation's economic sanctions.
Administration Makes Case Against Iraq - ABC News

See Blindboo, that's how you support your statement with an actual "news" link to back it up. Avoiding having to default to any Q&A (give your best possible 'selected' response to the above question here). Next thing you know people will be supporting their facts based on what they saw on a Huffington Post blog. Is it really that hard to find a journalistic news source?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither JRK nor Shakles have even remotely presented a coherent and documented case that would persuaded the objective minded and educated person to conclude anything other than the Bushies et al conducted an illegal and unjust war in Iraq that has resulted in seriously damaging the American economy, its prestige throughout the world, thousands on thousands of dead and injured Americans, scores on scores of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis, and an Iraqi and Iranian alliance that bodes no good for US policy interests.mis

Bush's administration will go down in history as a criminal conspiracy that failed miserably on the stage of world history.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, . . .

Immaterial to the OP, and an area in which the Bush admin wussed out. I hope the Obama admin does far better. The assassination of Iraqi scientists seems to be slowing matters down.

So Bush was wrong at going after Iraq when the "corrupt self interest" United Nations failed enforce any of their resolutions against Saddam Husseign?

Administration Makes Case Against Iraq
ABC News, Sept 12

Ahead of the president's speech, the White House released this document. It was assembled by the National Security Council, and served as the basis and background for the president's speech. The text of the document follows:

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalog all of the violations of U.N. resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the United Nation's economic sanctions.
Administration Makes Case Against Iraq - ABC News

See Blindboo, that's how you support your statement with an actual "news" link to back it up. Avoiding having to default to any Q&A (give your best possible 'selected' response to the above question here). Next thing you know people will be supporting their facts based on what they saw on a Huffington Post blog. Is it really that hard to find a journalistic news source?

Poor Shackie....since you can't be bothered with Fackcheck.orgs Q&A style in debunking the myths you brought up about President Clinton, here are the sources, as sited, that backup the answers.

Sources
"1996 CIA Memo to Sudanese Official." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.

9/11 Commission. 9/11 Commission Report Notes. 21 Aug. 2004. 17 Jan. 2008.

9/11 Commission. "Chapter 4: Responses to al Qaeda’s Initial Assaults." 21 Aug. 2004. 9/11 Commission Report. 17 Jan. 2008.

NewsMax.com. "Berger Flashback: Hard Spin on Sudan Offer," 19 July 2004.

Clarke, Richard. Testimony before the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Lindsey Graham, Chair. 11 June 2002.

Clinton, William. Speech to the Long Island Association. Long Island, NY, Feb. 2002.

Gellman, Barton. "U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed." Washington Post, 3 Oct. 2001.

U.S. Grand Jury Indictment Against Usama bin Laden. United States District Court: Southern District of New York. 6 Nov. 1998.

Wright, Lawrence. "The Looming Tower." New York: Vintage Books, 2006.

 

[JRK]

I'm curious to see whether history will show the Obama Administration allowed Iran to possess nuclear weapons, . . .

Immaterial to the OP, and an area in which the Bush admin wussed out. I hope the Obama admin does far better. The assassination of Iraqi scientists seems to be slowing matters down.

So Bush was wrong at going after Iraq when the "corrupt self interest" United Nations failed enforce any of their resolutions against Saddam Husseign?

Administration Makes Case Against Iraq
ABC News, Sept 12

Ahead of the president's speech, the White House released this document. It was assembled by the National Security Council, and served as the basis and background for the president's speech. The text of the document follows:

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalog all of the violations of U.N. resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the United Nation's economic sanctions.
Administration Makes Case Against Iraq - ABC News

See Blindboo, that's how you support your statement with an actual "news" link to back it up. Avoiding having to default to any Q&A (give your best possible 'selected' response to the above question here). Next thing you know people will be supporting their facts based on what they saw on a Huffington Post blog. Is it really that hard to find a journalistic news source?

The fact of the matter is with Iraq these guys are over the top. They have tried so hard to re write history, and have attacked me ruthlessly in there attempt to re write it

10-2002 congress gives the country the guidance
1-2003 Blix states Guidance *(UN)
3-2003 we invade
2006 we provide congress with enough proof to make it beyond legal
2008 we oversee the sell of yellow cake from the govt of Iraq to the govt of Canada, people still claim that Saddam had no part i this, I guess Iraq got the yellow cake after Saddam was captured
11-2008 a peace treaty is signed for a 2012 departure
its 15 weeks away

It is really that simple. We did what we had to do and now it is over

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Utilitarian]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

The last great American president was Eisenhower. There were a few bright spots after that like the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but overall, the American political system has been in a long period of decline.

We're reaching the modern equivalent of the end of the Roman Republic.

 

[JRK]

Is that the best you can do?
If you fell that way about them then I would hate to see how you feel about Pelosi, Reid and Obama

 

[JRK]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

The last great American president was Eisenhower. There were a few bright spots after that like the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but overall, the American political system has been in a long period of decline.

We're reaching the modern equivalent of the end of the Roman Republic.

I hate you feel that way. No other president sense FDR has faced what GWB did. We judge him and his 8 years as though none of those events took place
This country is fine, its leadership is not. Prior to 2007 we were fine
when the far left took control of congress the wheels came off. we will get it back

 

[JakeStarkey]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

The last great American president was Eisenhower. There were a few bright spots after that like the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but overall, the American political system has been in a long period of decline.

We're reaching the modern equivalent of the end of the Roman Republic.

I hate you feel that way. No other president sense FDR has faced what GWB did. We judge him and his 8 years as though none of those events took place
This country is fine, its leadership is not. Prior to 2007 we were fine
when the far left took control of congress the wheels came off. we will get it back

JRK continues to deny the undeniable: the Bush administrations may have been the worst in the history of the country, and certainly the most criminal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Immaterial to the OP, and an area in which the Bush admin wussed out. I hope the Obama admin does far better. The assassination of Iraqi scientists seems to be slowing matters down.

So Bush was wrong at going after Iraq when the "corrupt self interest" United Nations failed enforce any of their resolutions against Saddam Husseign?

Administration Makes Case Against Iraq
ABC News, Sept 12

Ahead of the president's speech, the White House released this document. It was assembled by the National Security Council, and served as the basis and background for the president's speech. The text of the document follows:

A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalog all of the violations of U.N. resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.

For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the United Nation's economic sanctions.
Administration Makes Case Against Iraq - ABC News

See Blindboo, that's how you support your statement with an actual "news" link to back it up. Avoiding having to default to any Q&A (give your best possible 'selected' response to the above question here). Next thing you know people will be supporting their facts based on what they saw on a Huffington Post blog. Is it really that hard to find a journalistic news source?

The fact of the matter is with Iraq these guys are over the top. They have tried so hard to re write history, and have attacked me ruthlessly in there attempt to re write it

10-2002 congress gives the country the guidance
1-2003 Blix states Guidance *(UN)
3-2003 we invade
2006 we provide congress with enough proof to make it beyond legal
2008 we oversee the sell of yellow cake from the govt of Iraq to the govt of Canada, people still claim that Saddam had no part i this, I guess Iraq got the yellow cake after Saddam was captured
11-2008 a peace treaty is signed for a 2012 departure
its 15 weeks away

It is really that simple. We did what we had to do and now it is over

Yes simply disagreeing with your simple stuff here and posting facts to back it up is attacking you ruthlessly.