Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JRK]

Congress provides for but can not order the military to do anything. It's in the Constitution.

Constitutional Deligated Powers 101 -- Today's lesson: 'Presidential Authority of Armed Forces'.
The President can NOT declare war without FIRST getting an approval from Congress to do so, as written under the United States Constitution. The president can not Declare War unilaterally, as you appear to believe. The Constitution doesn't give him that kind of authority. Period.
Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Under the War Powers resolution of 1973: The president MUST inform Congress within 48 hrs of using military forces, and forbids them from remaining any longer than 60 days unless a Declaration of War request is made through Congress.

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Did Congress declare war?






When did that happen?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

 

[Nic_Driver]

Constitutional Deligated Powers 101 -- Today's lesson: 'Presidential Authority of Armed Forces'.
The President can NOT declare war without FIRST getting an approval from Congress to do so, as written under the United States Constitution. The president can not Declare War unilaterally, as you appear to believe. The Constitution doesn't give him that kind of authority. Period.
Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Under the War Powers resolution of 1973: The president MUST inform Congress within 48 hrs of using military forces, and forbids them from remaining any longer than 60 days unless a Declaration of War request is made through Congress.

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Did Congress declare war?






When did that happen?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

That's not a declaration of war JRK, try again.

 

[JRK]

Did Congress declare war?






When did that happen?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

That's not a declaration of war JRK, try again.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must

Hans Blix 1-27-2003
Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, 2003 ... Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 ... Iraq should not have had such munitions

Hans Blix's report to the United Nations on Jan. 27, 2003@Everything2.com

where do we go from here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Constitutional Deligated Powers 101 -- Today's lesson: 'Presidential Authority of Armed Forces'.
The President can NOT declare war without FIRST getting an approval from Congress to do so, as written under the United States Constitution. The president can not Declare War unilaterally, as you appear to believe. The Constitution doesn't give him that kind of authority. Period.
Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Under the War Powers resolution of 1973: The president MUST inform Congress within 48 hrs of using military forces, and forbids them from remaining any longer than 60 days unless a Declaration of War request is made through Congress.

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Did Congress declare war?






When did that happen?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

You continue to lie. Congress gave authorization of force, it did not declare war. This is why you are not taken seriously, even by most of the conservatives here.

 

[BlindBoo]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

Yawn, more re-wrotes I see. No. Specifically that was a resolution gave the President the power to decide to use military force based on specific criteria.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

As opposed to something like this:

The War ResolutionDeclaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States


Oh do you need a link for that??????

 

[JRK]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

Yawn, more re-wrotes I see. No. Specifically that was a resolution gave the President the power to decide to use military force based on specific criteria.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

As opposed to something like this:

The War ResolutionDeclaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States


Oh do you need a link for that??????

Nope
You did it for me. What do you think that resolution was about?
Look Boo why? Explain to me in a time in which million are out of work, Iraq is a free republic, Afgahn. Who knows where that mess lands, except the troops have made it a republic that no longer allows the OBLs of the world to use it as there camp

Your trying to hang on to the lies that got Obama elected, and you know what? it is failing
Congress stated in Oct of 2002 that if Saddam did not turn it around, we would.
You know what? we did

 

[BlindBoo]

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

Yawn, more re-wrotes I see. No. Specifically that was a resolution gave the President the power to decide to use military force based on specific criteria.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

As opposed to something like this:

The War ResolutionDeclaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States


Oh do you need a link for that??????

Nope
You did it for me. What do you think that resolution was about?
Look Boo why? Explain to me in a time in which million are out of work, Iraq is a free republic, Afgahn. Who knows where that mess lands, except the troops have made it a republic that no longer allows the OBLs of the world to use it as there camp

Your trying to hang on to the lies that got Obama elected, and you know what? it is failing
Congress stated in Oct of 2002 that if Saddam did not turn it around, we would.
You know what? we did

Saddam and Iraq were not a theat to the worlds remaining super power. He had not been able to rebuild his army from 1991 and he had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs. But don't listen to me, listen to Condi and Collin tell it.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU]Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JRK]

Yawn, more re-wrotes I see. No. Specifically that was a resolution gave the President the power to decide to use military force based on specific criteria.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ; and
acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

As opposed to something like this:

The War ResolutionDeclaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States


Oh do you need a link for that??????

Nope
You did it for me. What do you think that resolution was about?
Look Boo why? Explain to me in a time in which million are out of work, Iraq is a free republic, Afgahn. Who knows where that mess lands, except the troops have made it a republic that no longer allows the OBLs of the world to use it as there camp

Your trying to hang on to the lies that got Obama elected, and you know what? it is failing
Congress stated in Oct of 2002 that if Saddam did not turn it around, we would.
You know what? we did

Saddam and Iraq were not a theat to the worlds remaining super power. He had not been able to rebuild his army from 1991 and he had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs. But don't listen to me, listen to Condi and Collin tell it.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU]Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Bill Clinton thought OBL was not a threat before 9-11
whats your point Boo

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope
You did it for me. What do you think that resolution was about?
Look Boo why? Explain to me in a time in which million are out of work, Iraq is a free republic, Afgahn. Who knows where that mess lands, except the troops have made it a republic that no longer allows the OBLs of the world to use it as there camp

Your trying to hang on to the lies that got Obama elected, and you know what? it is failing
Congress stated in Oct of 2002 that if Saddam did not turn it around, we would.
You know what? we did

Saddam and Iraq were not a theat to the worlds remaining super power. He had not been able to rebuild his army from 1991 and he had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs. But don't listen to me, listen to Condi and Collin tell it.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1X-I-38lrU]Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Bill Clinton thought OBL was not a threat before 9-11
whats your point Boo

You just can't help youself can you.

First, President Clinton had not been in office for over 33 weeks or so, his thoughts on OBL didn't mean squat. It is what President Bush thought about OBL that mattered. Second Yes he did.

President William Jefferson Clinton's Speech-National Academy of Sciences

Bush Warned of Bin Laden - Did Less Than Clinton

How much time did President Bush spend on OBL? Was his team warned about the threat? Or did they brush off the warning and spend most of their efforts trying to pass a Missile Defense strategy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo-conservatisim destablized the Middle East, turned Iraq into Iran's arms, helped to crack the American economy, increased the deficit horribly, and mangled Afghanistan.

What is sad is that it took BHO to win the war in Iran, stablize Afghanistan and start bringing our troops home, get Obama, get most of the leadership of the bad guys, and lead from behind in Libya.

Why is Bush such a loser, and Obama makes Bush look like a fourth grader?

This is depressing for a Republican to consider these two presidents.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Did the OP really write "re wrote"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Saddam and Iraq were not a theat to the worlds remaining super power. He had not been able to rebuild his army from 1991 and he had not been able to rebuild his WMD programs. But don't listen to me, listen to Condi and Collin tell it.

And Saddam was in no way involved in 9/11.

Since Congress based its resolution on information provided by the Bush Administration – information known by the Administration to be false – the resolution was invalid and the invasion illegal.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Perhaps JR can expalin why President Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland earlier this year?

The fact President George W. Bush's aggressive terrorism policies against muslium extremists aren't very popular with some nations, doesn't prove a thing. Even his own father, President George H.W. Bush, had threats that prevented him from traveling overseas. That in itself doesn't prove a thing BlindBoo, nothing. All I've seen thus far is opinion. Please back up your statement with supported FACTS!

I want to see [through "links"] these illegal war crimes, with drawn up accusation charges, connecting President George W Bush to specific violations under the United Nations! Any further ramblings and grumblings from you or JakeStarkey without any documented links as proof is just a complete waste of my time, and just proof of more empty liberal drivel.

So why do you believe President Bush (43) canceled his trip to Switzerland early in 2011?

President George H. W. Bush can not travel overseas either, there was even an assassination plot on his life in Iraq. Are you suggesting anyone who can not travel overseas is because of your "belief" in war crimes?

I have seen American Contractors who have had to put their lives at risk in the Mid East, found hanging off of bridges or mutilated with beheadings , simply because they are "westerners". I would hardly charge any of them with the excuse of "war crimes". So lets put all rumours, blog commentaries, and Nation Inquirer type of journalism and just show me FACTS that you can support. Quit wasting my time with some idle speculation and present some documented proof behind your allegations.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Congress provides for but can not order the military to do anything. It's in the Constitution.

Constitutional Deligated Powers 101 -- Today's lesson: 'Presidential Authority of Armed Forces'.
The President can NOT declare war without FIRST getting an approval from Congress to do so, as written under the United States Constitution. The president can not Declare War unilaterally, as you appear to believe. The Constitution doesn't give him that kind of authority. Period.
Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Under the War Powers resolution of 1973: The president MUST inform Congress within 48 hrs of using military forces, and forbids them from remaining any longer than 60 days unless a Declaration of War request is made through Congress.

"The President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Did Congress declare war?


When did that happen?

Did you fail to look at the link I provided regarding the 107th Congress, following the comment: "The president can not Declare War unilaterally'?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Did Congress declare war?






When did that happen?

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Yes

You continue to lie. Congress gave authorization of force, it did not declare war. This is why you are not taken seriously, even by most of the conservatives here.

How can you "authorize" the military with use of force without going into war? Was this simply a "suggestion" by Congress, an after thought perhaps . . that when we somehow get around to it, we MIGHT actually use the militay in an aggressive manner? Do you suggest the military simply waste time building up a military force on a nation's border but never crossing it?
So the President gets an "authorization of the use of force" but must approach Congress AGAIN to be able to USE that same military force in an aggressive manner to invade a nation? You are serious right? Really?

Please tell me you have a clue as to what "authorize the use of military force" actually means? Was this an invitation by Congress to all the US Generals, along with the British, to simply go over to the opposition and have some tea and crimpets perhaps? Explain how USING military force is not using the military in an aggressive manner towards another country? Doesn't sound like a "peaceful" encounter to say the least.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nowhere can JRK make a Declaration of War by Congress the equivalent of an authorization of force.

Show me in judicial decisions where that is so. He can't, period. No person cognizant of the Constitutional believes any such thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact President George W. Bush's aggressive terrorism policies against muslium extremists aren't very popular with some nations, doesn't prove a thing. Even his own father, President George H.W. Bush, had threats that prevented him from traveling overseas. That in itself doesn't prove a thing BlindBoo, nothing. All I've seen thus far is opinion. Please back up your statement with supported FACTS!

I want to see [through "links"] these illegal war crimes, with drawn up accusation charges, connecting President George W Bush to specific violations under the United Nations! Any further ramblings and grumblings from you or JakeStarkey without any documented links as proof is just a complete waste of my time, and just proof of more empty liberal drivel.

So why do you believe President Bush (43) canceled his trip to Switzerland early in 2011?

President George H. W. Bush can not travel overseas either, there was even an assassination plot on his life in Iraq. Are you suggesting anyone who can not travel overseas is because of your "belief" in war crimes?

I have seen American Contractors who have had to put their lives at risk in the Mid East, found hanging off of bridges or mutilated with beheadings , simply because they are "westerners". I would hardly charge any of them with the excuse of "war crimes". So lets put all rumours, blog commentaries, and Nation Inquirer type of journalism and just show me FACTS that you can support. Quit wasting my time with some idle speculation and present some documented proof behind your allegations.

There were no allegations, just a simple question. Why did President Bush (43) canceled his trip to Switzerland early in 2011? Switzerland is not in the Mid East.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why did Bush 43 cancel his trip?

Why do you senior bushies not travel to Oregon or Mass for that matter as well as to Europe?

Where did Congress issue a Declaration of War?

 

[JRK]

So why do you believe President Bush (43) canceled his trip to Switzerland early in 2011?

President George H. W. Bush can not travel overseas either, there was even an assassination plot on his life in Iraq. Are you suggesting anyone who can not travel overseas is because of your "belief" in war crimes?

I have seen American Contractors who have had to put their lives at risk in the Mid East, found hanging off of bridges or mutilated with beheadings , simply because they are "westerners". I would hardly charge any of them with the excuse of "war crimes". So lets put all rumours, blog commentaries, and Nation Inquirer type of journalism and just show me FACTS that you can support. Quit wasting my time with some idle speculation and present some documented proof behind your allegations.

There were no allegations, just a simple question. Why did President Bush (43) canceled his trip to Switzerland early in 2011? Switzerland is not in the Mid East.

Do you have a link to that event BOO?
Why is it we had about 50 countries support us in Iraq from day 1, and GWB is the only one who is the criminal? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

 

[JakeStarkey]

GWB is chief criminal of many, many criminals. The war was criminal. We are suffering now from more danger in the world because of neo-conservatism and a cracked economy at home because of reckless bushie spending. All true, hmmmmm?