Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq?

[Gunny]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush. Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.

Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran. Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran.

Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.

Bush is certainly not responsible for his predecessor as President allowing the problem in Iraq to fester for 8 years. Had the UN acted to enforce its resolution, the US would not have been left holding the bag. The borders between Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were enforced by US forces at our expense. An unacceptable, endless situation.

Saddam repeatedly provoked those forces with little to no action on the part of the US from 1991 -2003. During that time, Saddam repeatedly was elusive, obtuse and purposefully deceitful to UN Weapons Inspectors in regard to WMD. He is STILL accountable to the UN for several tons of WMDs/percursors.

If he had no WMDs, then he was all the more stupid for pretending he did. He played a high stakes game with nothing in his hand and he got called.

I contend Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own demise. I also contend that the responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel belongs to him, and the religious fanatics that have waged a war of terror against US, UK and Iraqi government forces since Saddam was removed from power.

IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true. Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East. The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted. The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted. Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President. It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.

 

[Annie]

I agree and would rep, but alas.

 

[Valerie]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush. Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.

Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran. Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran.

Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.

Bush is certainly not responsible for his predecessor as President allowing the problem in Iraq to fester for 8 years. Had the UN acted to enforce its resolution, the US would not have been left holding the bag. The borders between Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were enforced by US forces at our expense. An unacceptable, endless situation.

Saddam repeatedly provoked those forces with little to no action on the part of the US from 1991 -2003. During that time, Saddam repeatedly was elusive, obtuse and purposefully deceitful to UN Weapons Inspectors in regard to WMD. He is STILL accountable to the UN for several tons of WMDs/percursors.

If he had no WMDs, then he was all the more stupid for pretending he did. He played a high stakes game with nothing in his hand and he got called.

I contend Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own demise. I also contend that the responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel belongs to him, and the religious fanatics that have waged a war of terror against US, UK and Iraqi government forces since Saddam was removed from power.

IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true. Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East. The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted. The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted. Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President. It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

 

[NOBama]

Although I disagreed with Bush for not doing a "surge" much sooner than he did, which cost him my vote in '04, I can tell you what I DO believe Bush was responsible for. Bush was responsible for keeping this country safe from 9/11 through the end of his Presidency, and for that, I am grateful.

 

[Iriemon]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't say he's soley to blame, there are lots of causes.

Though Reagan used to have a paperweight on his desk, saying "the buckeroo stops here." It means that ultimate responsibility lies with the guy at the top.

Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush. Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.

Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran. Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran.

Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.

Agree with all that.

Bush is certainly not responsible for his predecessor as President allowing the problem in Iraq to fester for 8 years. Had the UN acted to enforce its resolution, the US would not have been left holding the bag. The borders between Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were enforced by US forces at our expense. An unacceptable, endless situation.

Why was it only "festering" while Clinton was president? How about when BushI stopped the troops when they had a far more legitimate basis for deposing Hussein in 1991?

Speculation. Partisanship.

Saddam repeatedly provoked those forces with little to no action on the part of the US from 1991 -2003. During that time, Saddam repeatedly was elusive, obtuse and purposefully deceitful to UN Weapons Inspectors in regard to WMD. He is STILL accountable to the UN for several tons of WMDs/percursors.

Sadam repeatedly asserted that all the WMD he'd had was destroyed and he didn't have any left. That was not deceitful.

If he had no WMDs, then he was all the more stupid for pretending he did. He played a high stakes game with nothing in his hand and he got called.

The petty boasting of a two bit dictator who was no threat to us is a pretty lame reason to committ the nation to this war.

I contend Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own demise. I also contend that the responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel belongs to him, and the religious fanatics that have waged a war of terror against US, UK and Iraqi government forces since Saddam was removed from power.

The Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq. Hussein's boasting and bragging was insufficient justification to start a war and invade and occupy.

IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true. Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East. The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted. The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted. Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.

As stated in another thread, I agree that from a strategic perspective, particularly one based on reducing the threat of terrorism, the invasion of Iraq was a terrific blunder.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President. It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.

I don't blame Bush for insurgents pulling the trigger or setting off bombs against our guys.

I think he and his administration can fairly be blamed for making the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which was both unnecessary and a strategic blunder. I also blame them for misimplying to the public that Iraq was an "urgent threat" which undermined and damaged our credibility. I blame his administration for the lax policy on torture in Iraq, which further undermined our credibility. These things arguably contributed the the intensity of the insugency against us in Iraq.

 

[Annie]

It was Saddam's fault, for not adhering to the agreements that called for armistice following Gulf I. With the 9/11 attack, we faced going to Afghanistan solely, which would have meant the jihadis would also come there. Or we could go 2 fronts, bringing the jihadis to Iraq. There's not a doubt that fighting in Afghanistan, large scale, would have been much worse.

Bush & Co., seemed to have dropped the ball for a long while there, after catching Saddam. But eventually got that right, now it's Obama's to continue what the Iraqis and our military have paid so dearly for.

As for Afghanistan, that's going to be Obama's from the looks of it. Hope it goes well.

 

[Iriemon]

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access. They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Ye despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs. The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.

 

[Iriemon]

It was Saddam's fault, for not adhering to the agreements that called for armistice following Gulf I.

The fact that a nation does not adhere to an armistice is not necessarily justification of war, invasion, and occupation. But in fact Iraq had eliminated its WMDs and therefore largely if not wholly abided by the UN requirements.

With the 9/11 attack, we faced going to Afghanistan solely, which would have meant the jihadis would also come there. Or we could go 2 fronts, bringing the jihadis to Iraq. There's not a doubt that fighting in Afghanistan, large scale, would have been much worse.

The vast bulk of the insurgents in Iraq were Iraqi. There is little to base speculation upon that they would have gone to Afghanistan to fight had there been no Iraq war. Hussein was no friend of the Taliban -- he government didn't recognize them.

Bush & Co., seemed to have dropped the ball for a long while there, after catching Saddam. But eventually got that right, now it's Obama's to continue what the Iraqis and our military have paid so dearly for.

As for Afghanistan, that's going to be Obama's from the looks of it. Hope it goes well.

The US has paid a huge strategic price as well as lives and treasure for the blunder in Iraq.

 

[Gunny]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't say he's soley to blame, there are lots of causes.

Though Reagan used to have a paperweight on his desk, saying "the buckeroo stops here." It means that ultimate responsibility lies with the guy at the top.

Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush. Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.

Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran. Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran.

Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.

Agree with all that.



Why was it only "festering" while Clinton was president? How about when BushI stopped the troops when they had a far more legitimate basis for deposing Hussein in 1991?

Speculation. Partisanship.



Sadam repeatedly asserted that all the WMD he'd had was destroyed and he didn't have any left. That was not deceitful.



The petty boasting of a two bit dictator who was no threat to us is a pretty lame reason to committ the nation to this war.



The Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq. Hussein's boasting and bragging was insufficient justification to start a war and invade and occupy.

IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true. Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East. The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted. The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted. Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.

As stated in another thread, I agree that from a strategic perspective, particularly one based on reducing the threat of terrorism, the invasion of Iraq was a terrific blunder.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President. It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.

I don't blame Bush for insurgents pulling the trigger or setting off bombs against our guys.

I think he and his administration can fairly be blamed for making the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which was both unnecessary and a strategic blunder. I also blame them for misimplying to the public that Iraq was an "urgent threat" which undermined and damaged our credibility. I blame his administration for the lax policy on torture in Iraq, which further undermined our credibility. These things arguably contributed the the intensity of the insugency against us in Iraq.

No, it doesn't depend on how you look at it. I pretty-much go for the straight-up, head-on approach, calling all the spades spades. Things always seem to come out much better than way.

There is no speculation about Clinton. I was on mor tan one occasion part of his babysitting force. There is absolutely nothing partisan about cstating something that is.

The argument that Bush should have continued to invade has been made and destroyed too many times. Bush had to agree to NOT depose Saddam in order to get an airfield in SA, and unrestricted use of Arab airspace for Desert Storm. He made an agreement and kept it. Simple as that.

You don't know whether or not Saddam claiming all his WMDs were destroyed was deceitful or not. The records of such events do not exist. You would take Saddam at his word?

What you call boasting and blustering was in fact firing missiles on US warplanes, attacking his own people in no-fly zones, all violations of a ceasefire he agreed to.

Bush did nothing more to sell hsi reasons for invasions than any other President does to sell any of their junk. If you're accusing him of being a politician, it's hardly a newsflash on this end.

 

[Burp]

If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.

 

[Gunny]

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access. They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Ye despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs. The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.

You are incorrect. Had Saddam all free and full access, it could not have been used as a basis to justify invasion.

Saddam possessed WMDs. Period. We sold him some of the dual-use percursors. The CIA taught his chemists to refine Mustard gas, a chemical weapon with no purpose BUT as a WMD.

He used WMDs on the Kurds, and Iran. That shows possession and intent. Yet you would assume he does not have any on his say-so?

Want to buy some West Texas swampland?

 

[elvis]

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access. They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Ye despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs. The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.

You are incorrect. Had Saddam all free and full access, it could not have been used as a basis to justify invasion.

Saddam possessed WMDs. Period. We sold him some of the dual-use percursors. The CIA taught his chemists to refine Mustard gas, a chemical weapon with no purpose BUT as a WMD.

He used WMDs on the Kurds, and Iran. That shows possession and intent. Yet you would assume he does not have any on his say-so?

Want to buy some West Texas swampland?

Why were Saddam's crimes horrible in the 1990's, but not when we were teaching him how to refine mustard gas?

 

[Iriemon]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't say he's soley to blame, there are lots of causes.

Though Reagan used to have a paperweight on his desk, saying "the buckeroo stops here." It means that ultimate responsibility lies with the guy at the top.



Agree with all that.



Why was it only "festering" while Clinton was president? How about when BushI stopped the troops when they had a far more legitimate basis for deposing Hussein in 1991?

Speculation. Partisanship.



Sadam repeatedly asserted that all the WMD he'd had was destroyed and he didn't have any left. That was not deceitful.



The petty boasting of a two bit dictator who was no threat to us is a pretty lame reason to committ the nation to this war.



The Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq. Hussein's boasting and bragging was insufficient justification to start a war and invade and occupy.



As stated in another thread, I agree that from a strategic perspective, particularly one based on reducing the threat of terrorism, the invasion of Iraq was a terrific blunder.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President. It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.

I don't blame Bush for insurgents pulling the trigger or setting off bombs against our guys.

I think he and his administration can fairly be blamed for making the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which was both unnecessary and a strategic blunder. I also blame them for misimplying to the public that Iraq was an "urgent threat" which undermined and damaged our credibility. I blame his administration for the lax policy on torture in Iraq, which further undermined our credibility. These things arguably contributed the the intensity of the insugency against us in Iraq.

No, it doesn't depend on how you look at it. I pretty-much go for the straight-up, head-on approach, calling all the spades spades. Things always seem to come out much better than way.

Fine. Say Bush is responsible then.

There is no speculation about Clinton. I was on mor tan one occasion part of his babysitting force. There is absolutely nothing partisan about cstating something that is.

The argument that Bush should have continued to invade has been made and destroyed too many times. Bush had to agree to NOT depose Saddam in order to get an airfield in SA, and unrestricted use of Arab airspace for Desert Storm. He made an agreement and kept it. Simple as that.

So you think SA would have let Clinton use the airbase to invade Iraq?

You don't know whether or not Saddam claiming all his WMDs were destroyed was deceitful or not. The records of such events do not exist. You would take Saddam at his word?

Of course not. I base it on the fact that both before and after the war, inspectors scoured every inch of Iraq in the biggest easter egg hunt of all time.

What you call boasting and blustering was in fact firing missiles on US warplanes, attacking his own people in no-fly zones, all violations of a ceasefire he agreed to.

That is the best argument for it. Though it was Iraq airspace that was being defended. This did not justify invasion and occupation IMO, and the Bush administration did not base its action principally on this.

Bush did nothing more to sell hsi reasons for invasions than any other President does to sell any of their junk. If you're accusing him of being a politician, it's hardly a newsflash on this end.

Don't get your point.

 

[Iriemon]

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access. They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Ye despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs. The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.

You are incorrect. Had Saddam all free and full access, it could not have been used as a basis to justify invasion.

The UN inspectors in 2003 stated they were being given full access.

Saddam possessed WMDs. Period. We sold him some of the dual-use percursors. The CIA taught his chemists to refine Mustard gas, a chemical weapon with no purpose BUT as a WMD.

He used WMDs on the Kurds, and Iran. That shows possession and intent.

And that was all in the 1980s, not 2003. The relevant question is whether he had them in 2003.

Yet you would assume he does not have any on his say-so?

No. Although certainly if he admitted he had them in Mar 2003 that would have been a different story.

I wouldn't assume he had them at all. But I wouldn't assume he *did* have them after inspectors scoured Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 and found nothing.

Want to buy some West Texas swampland?

Not interested. How about some nice property in the Keys?

 

[Valerie]

You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it. The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.

In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access. They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Yet despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs. The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.

Good post, Iriemon. I don't disagree with much of what you said, but I don't think they had enough information to feel comfortable trusting the reports and most of all trusting Saddam Hussein.

 

[Iriemon]

If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.

In one sense true, he could have called for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq.

But Obama of course plays a far different role in the Iraq war.

 

[Burp]

If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.

In one sense true, he could have called for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq.

But Obama of course plays a far different role in the Iraq war.

He is Commander-in-Chief. It's happening on his watch.

 

[Iriemon]

If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.

In one sense true, he could have called for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq.

But Obama of course plays a far different role in the Iraq war.

He is Commander-in-Chief. It's happening on his watch.

As I said, that is one way to look at it. "The Buckeroo stops here."
Looking at it this way, Bush is responsible for all deaths prior to Jan 20 2009.

Gunny as you can see takes a different way of looking at it.

You can answer the question from different perspectives.

 

[Burp]

In one sense true, he could have called for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq.

But Obama of course plays a far different role in the Iraq war.

He is Commander-in-Chief. It's happening on his watch.

As I said, that is one way to look at it. "The Buckeroo stops here."
Looking at it this way, Bush is responsible for all deaths prior to Jan 20 2009.

Gunny as you can see takes a different way of looking at it.

You can answer the question from different perspectives.

I agree with Gunny.

You will notice I said, "If so,..."

For those who feel that he was responsible because he was president, then they have to follow their own that and hold BO responsible also.

 

[Yurt]

I say no. Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Depends on how you look at it. I wouldn't say he's soley to blame, there are lots of causes.

Though Reagan used to have a paperweight on his desk, saying "the buckeroo stops here." It means that ultimate responsibility lies with the guy at the top.

yet you and obama blame bush for numerous things