Political history being re wrote as we watch

[BlindBoo]

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?

Yes I do. Just type in Bush and Switzerland into Google

I can only speculate, but I suspect Tony Blair has be wary of traveling to certain countries as well.

 

[Nic_Driver]

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.

Congress authorized the use of force under certain conditions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Congress authorized the use of force under certain conditions.

It was not a Declaration of War against Iraq.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

Congress authorized the use of force under certain conditions.

It was not a Declaration of War against Iraq.

This is what I found from the 107 joint session of Congress following 9-11:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';


Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';


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--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress authorized the use of force under certain conditions.

It was not a Declaration of War against Iraq.

This is what I found from the 107 joint session of Congress following 9-11:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';


Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';


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--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Without usable WMD Iraq could not threaten the United States. The Head of the CIA briefed the President of the fact that they had credible evidence that Iraq had not reconsituted it WMD programs.

SCR 1441 was in effect and was being highly sucessful according to UN records. So by invading the President did not enforce all relevant UNSCR's. Congress is a digrace and everyone voting for this resolution should have resigned.

Anything else....oh yeah that resolution goes on to say that the President is authorized to strike any country that had ties to the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was not involved.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

The policies of President George W. Bush to hold nations accountable that harbor terrorists was not met with "open arms" from a lot of countries that hold simpathetic views towards muslims. Again, westerners, following 9-11, whether civilians traveling or contractors were always to be on guard when traveling outside the United States. Again President H.W. Bush was also prevented from traveling overseas as well, Presidennts and their policies will always make them a prime target for simpathizers of other nations that don't agree with "the United States world view". Why did Obama feel the ned to go to an apology tour of nations overseas, if the policies that the United States used to protect their own were seen as "popular"? The answer is, the policies of the United States since the first Iraq War wasn't popular.
The difference here is I can differentiate an unpopular world view of the United States, from a belief or "opinion" that hasn't even been proven or shown through ANY documented evidence.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It was not a Declaration of War against Iraq.

This is what I found from the 107 joint session of Congress following 9-11:

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';


Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;


Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;


Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';


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--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Without usable WMD Iraq could not threaten the United States. The Head of the CIA briefed the President of the fact that they had credible evidence that Iraq had not reconsituted it WMD programs.

SCR 1441 was in effect and was being highly sucessful according to UN records. So by invading the President did not enforce all relevant UNSCR's. Congress is a digrace and everyone voting for this resolution should have resigned.

Anything else....oh yeah that resolution goes on to say that the President is authorized to strike any country that had ties to the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was not involved.

If Iraq was not involved, why the Authorization APPROVED by the 107th Congress for the use of force against Iraq? Why did Congress claim in 1998 (under President Clinton) that there was evidence supported by Iraq's constant avoidance of UN inspectors, that Iraq was engaged in building weapons of mass distruction? Read the resolution passed by the 107th Congress again, and you will find wording that draws to those conclusions. Wording within a resolution signed and passed by the joint session of Congress.

 

[JRK]

the 9-11 commission did not state that Iraq and OBL did not have ties. What it said was there was none found with the event
I am cluless as to what it is BOO and Jake are still trying to state? That congress did not have clearity in enforcing the UN resolutions?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The policies of President George W. Bush to hold nations accountable that harbor terrorists was not met with "open arms" from a lot of countries that hold simpathetic views towards muslims. Again, westerners, following 9-11, whether civilians traveling or contractors were always to be on guard when traveling outside the United States. Again President H.W. Bush was also prevented from traveling overseas as well, Presidennts and their policies will always make them a prime target for simpathizers of other nations that don't agree with "the United States world view". Why did Obama feel the ned to go to an apology tour of nations overseas, if the policies that the United States used to protect their own were seen as "popular"? The answer is, the policies of the United States since the first Iraq War wasn't popular.
The difference here is I can differentiate an unpopular world view of the United States, from a belief or "opinion" that hasn't even been proven or shown through ANY documented evidence.

He didn't. That is your opinion.

 

[JRK]

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.

The policies of President George W. Bush to hold nations accountable that harbor terrorists was not met with "open arms" from a lot of countries that hold simpathetic views towards muslims. Again, westerners, following 9-11, whether civilians traveling or contractors were always to be on guard when traveling outside the United States. Again President H.W. Bush was also prevented from traveling overseas as well, Presidennts and their policies will always make them a prime target for simpathizers of other nations that don't agree with "the United States world view". Why did Obama feel the ned to go to an apology tour of nations overseas, if the policies that the United States used to protect their own were seen as "popular"? The answer is, the policies of the United States since the first Iraq War wasn't popular.
The difference here is I can differentiate an unpopular world view of the United States, from a belief or "opinion" that hasn't even been proven or shown through ANY documented evidence.

He didn't. That is your opinion.

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts
I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

 

[idb]

The policies of President George W. Bush to hold nations accountable that harbor terrorists was not met with "open arms" from a lot of countries that hold simpathetic views towards muslims. Again, westerners, following 9-11, whether civilians traveling or contractors were always to be on guard when traveling outside the United States. Again President H.W. Bush was also prevented from traveling overseas as well, Presidennts and their policies will always make them a prime target for simpathizers of other nations that don't agree with "the United States world view". Why did Obama feel the ned to go to an apology tour of nations overseas, if the policies that the United States used to protect their own were seen as "popular"? The answer is, the policies of the United States since the first Iraq War wasn't popular.
The difference here is I can differentiate an unpopular world view of the United States, from a belief or "opinion" that hasn't even been proven or shown through ANY documented evidence.

He didn't. That is your opinion.

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts
I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

Meaning that you have no problem when the right do it?

 

[Chris]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

George Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

 

[JakeStarkey]

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

The event that took place is that we went to war illegally without a Declaration of War.

The event that took place is that we used as an illegal justification that somehow the US had a right to enforce UN resolutions although the UN would not grant us the charter to use them as pretext for war.

The event that took place is that Bush neo-conservatism helped to break the economy.

 

[BlindBoo]

This is what I found from the 107 joint session of Congress following 9-11:

Without usable WMD Iraq could not threaten the United States. The Head of the CIA briefed the President of the fact that they had credible evidence that Iraq had not reconsituted it WMD programs.

SCR 1441 was in effect and was being highly sucessful according to UN records. So by invading the President did not enforce all relevant UNSCR's. Congress is a digrace and everyone voting for this resolution should have resigned.

Anything else....oh yeah that resolution goes on to say that the President is authorized to strike any country that had ties to the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was not involved.

If Iraq was not involved, why the Authorization APPROVED by the 107th Congress for the use of force against Iraq? Why did Congress claim in 1998 (under President Clinton) that there was evidence supported by Iraq's constant avoidance of UN inspectors, that Iraq was engaged in building weapons of mass distruction? Read the resolution passed by the 107th Congress again, and you will find wording that draws to those conclusions. Wording within a resolution signed and passed by the joint session of Congress.

The 107th Congress did not get the same breifing from the head of the CIA that President Bush recieved in Sept 2002.

Actually Shack, Iraq was avoiding and obstucting UN inspection teams that include member of the US. We were accused of using the inspections for spying on Iraqs military assest not connected with WMD.
U.S. SPIED ON IRAQ UNDER U.N. COVER, OFFICIALS NOW SAY - New York Times

 

[BlindBoo]

the 9-11 commission did not state that Iraq and OBL did not have ties. What it said was there was none found with the event
I am cluless as to what it is BOO and Jake are still trying to state? That congress did not have clearity in enforcing the UN resolutions?

The bill specifically authorized us of force against countries that were involved with the attack on 9-11. Iraq was not involved with the attacks on 9-11. It did not authorized us of force against countries that had contact with al Queda.

The ongoing UN resolution (1441) that the invasion halted was in the process of confirming Iraq had no usable WMD stockpiled, or ongoing WMD production.

Congress did nothing. They are the ones who are disgraced.

 

[BlindBoo]

The policies of President George W. Bush to hold nations accountable that harbor terrorists was not met with "open arms" from a lot of countries that hold simpathetic views towards muslims. Again, westerners, following 9-11, whether civilians traveling or contractors were always to be on guard when traveling outside the United States. Again President H.W. Bush was also prevented from traveling overseas as well, Presidennts and their policies will always make them a prime target for simpathizers of other nations that don't agree with "the United States world view". Why did Obama feel the ned to go to an apology tour of nations overseas, if the policies that the United States used to protect their own were seen as "popular"? The answer is, the policies of the United States since the first Iraq War wasn't popular.
The difference here is I can differentiate an unpopular world view of the United States, from a belief or "opinion" that hasn't even been proven or shown through ANY documented evidence.

He didn't. That is your opinion.

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts
I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

You seem to be in a continual re-wrote mode.

Facts are GWB did not declare war and 23 Senators and 133 Representative voted against giving him the deciding power.

There was no apology tour. That is your opinion. Of course it is my opinion that you simply parroted this opinion from the right wing echo-chamber. In reality the President didn't apologize once.

The Facts

Most of the criticism stems from a series of speeches that Obama made shortly after taking office, when he was trying to introduce himself to the world and also signify a break with the Bush administration with new policies, such as pledging to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay.

This is typical of many new presidents. George W. Bush, for instance, quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court, to name a few.

Rove built his case around four quotes made by Obama:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

In none of these cases does Obama actually use a word at all similar to "apologize." The Latin American comment might have resonance with Rove's old boss, since that was Bush's charge against the Clinton administration in the 2000 campaign. The Prague and London quotes are not apologies at all. The Paris quote, which is often cited as an apology, is taken out of context.

Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

George W. Bush inherited a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a nation at peace.

Eight years later, he left Obama with a shattered economy, a trillion dollar deficit, and two useless wars.

George Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

Again, Preesident Clinton never left a budget surplus, the National Debt INCREASED while he was in office. He used Social Security as part of a financial shuffle to bring down the deficit, all the while raising the debt ceiling. To say he left a "surplus" would be like putting your entire mortgage on your credit card and boasting how you paid off your house. That surplus is the biggest manipulation of funds ever done by the United States Government in its history!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

The event that took place is that we went to war illegally without a Declaration of War. unproven! Show me the link to back this up

The event that took place is that we used as an illegal justification that somehow the US had a right to enforce UN resolutions although the UN would not grant us the charter to use them as pretext for war.
Again you ignore the 'Authorization of the Use of Force On Iraq' passed by Congress (there is even a link to the actual document) and entertain us with unsupported "opinion". Do you know how to use a link with your responses? It's something the rest of us have only been using on this thread to back up our views. You should try it sometime, it helps others to believe you actually studied up on the subject and know what you are talking about.


The event that took place is that Bush neo-conservatism helped to break the economy. That was the fault of the CRA making it "racist" for companies to use credit history, savings balance, and record of employment as means for lower income families to acquire a home. There is also the issue of Democrat obstruction that prevented regulation oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. "Under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Reins, we don't have a problem with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac" - Maxine Waters. The financial collapse of Fannie Mae is what started the economic downturn!

So will you finally start to provide us with some links or will simply carry on with more bloviating?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

He didn't. That is your opinion.

boo what the diff is with you, shack and me is we are talking about real events, you as millions of libs as well as the media use opinion as facts
I have no issue with your opinion on the wars GWB declared with congress supporting him 100%
I have issue with the left creating events that never took place

You seem to be in a continual re-wrote mode.

Facts are GWB did not declare war and 23 Senators and 133 Representative voted against giving him the deciding power.

There was no apology tour. That is your opinion. Of course it is my opinion that you simply parroted this opinion from the right wing echo-chamber. In reality the President didn't apologize once.

The Facts

Most of the criticism stems from a series of speeches that Obama made shortly after taking office, when he was trying to introduce himself to the world and also signify a break with the Bush administration with new policies, such as pledging to close the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay.

This is typical of many new presidents. George W. Bush, for instance, quickly broke with Clinton administration policy on dealings with North Korea, the Kyoto climate change treaty and the international criminal court, to name a few.

Rove built his case around four quotes made by Obama:

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

In none of these cases does Obama actually use a word at all similar to "apologize." The Latin American comment might have resonance with Rove's old boss, since that was Bush's charge against the Clinton administration in the 2000 campaign. The Prague and London quotes are not apologies at all. The Paris quote, which is often cited as an apology, is taken out of context.

Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'

Still choosing to ignore the document I presented on Iraq and the premission to use military force in any manner the President sees fit? Where is this poof that President Bush had no authorization to go into Iraq? Care to supply your document from Congress to back your "opinion"? I need actual proof, not simply heresay that supported by 'spin' or some commentary BLOG circulating around the internet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress issued no Declaration of War against Iraq. JRK and Shakles cannot show one.

The UN has never given the US the right to enforce UN resolutions. JRK and Shakles cannot prove that the US does have the right. Where is Congress in our Constitution given the right to enforce other international institutions' resolutions? It does not exist.

JRK and Shakles knows the unfunded off the budge war helped to break the economy. All of their "magic dust" blinds no one.

And Bush and his buddies don't travel to Europe, Oregon, or Massachusetts. Wonder why?