We only do it because you get so petulant.You kids and that childish "Brandon" crap.
Grow the fuck up already!
Let's Go Brandon!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We only do it because you get so petulant.You kids and that childish "Brandon" crap.
Grow the fuck up already!
No. Bush made the UN inspectors leave Iraq. Kerry Biden, Clinton and I supported giving them more time to avoid the necessity of invading to disarm. Bush listened to his white evangelical Christian warmongers. Did you read the Land Letter.
The Land letter was a letter sent to U.S. President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. As its foundation for support, the letter refers to the "criteria of just war theory as developed by Christian theologians in the late fourth and early fifth centuries A.D."[1] The letter was written by Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. It was co-signed by:
- Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries
- Bill Bright, chairman of the Christian organization Cru
- James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, and
- Carl D. Herbster, president of the American Association of Christian Schools[1]
View attachment 784625
Richard D. Land
View attachment 784624
Bill Bright
The letter asserted that a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq met the criteria of traditional 'just war' theory because:
- such an action would be defensive
- the intent is found to be just and noble. The United States does not intend to 'destroy, conquer, or exploit Iraq'
- it is a last resort because Saddam Hussein had a record of attacking his neighbors, of the 'headlong pursuit and development of biochemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction' and their use against his own people, and harboring al-Qaeda terrorists
- it is authorized by a legitimate authority, namely the United States
- it has limited goals
- it has reasonable expectation of success
- non-combatant immunity would be observed
- it meets the criteria of proportionality—the human cost on both sides would be justified by the intended outcome
Never heard of any of those pastors and could care less, that is not why we went to war. Dems just pretended they were against it. The proof is in their actions. They voted for it, then when Obama got in he didn’t pull out of Iraq like he promised. Then started more wars like bombing the Libyan government out of existence, another country that never attacked us and was not threat. I noticed you didn’t address any of that.
There was no “coup” or “revolution” on J6. It was a mostly peaceful protest, where only unarmed protesters were murdered by the government
Never heard of any of those pastors and could care less, that is not why we went to war. Dems just pretended they were against it. The proof is in their actions. They voted for it, then when Obama got in he didn’t pull out of Iraq like he promised. Then started more wars like bombing the Libyan government out of existence, another country that never attacked us and was not threat. I noticed you didn’t address any of that.
There was no “coup” or “revolution” on J6. It was a mostly peaceful protest, where only unarmed protesters were murdered by the government
Um of course it did, read the Authorization for the Use of Force Xiden voted for giving Bush the authority to go in…it’s literally listed as one id the reasons
yes it did, and as I said the Clinton law, that made it our policy to remove Saddam was part of the reason Xiden voted to authorize Bush to use groud forces.
hahah of course it wasn't meaningless, it was still our policy. Did Xiden or any dems move to resend that law? No. Why? Because things with Saddam didn't get any better. In fact, in 2002, they by in large voted to give the President to use more military authority to overthrow SaddamWas the authorization before or after 700 sites were searched and no WMDS were found? What anyone said or did in 1998 became meaningless.
If you read the actual AUMF you would know why. Because Saddam Hussen was in violation of international law since 1998 when he did not allow inspectors into Iraq.
The trouble for Bush defenders is that from December 2002 on, SH did allow inspectors in and that meant SH was not in violation of his disarmament obligations and international law.
You cannot blame Democrats for Bush's lone decision to force peaceful inspections to end thereby choosing to disarm Iraq that was disarmed by war and death and destruction.
Bush was the Decider remember? That was not a Democrat decision.
Certainly it was contemplate that ground forces might be needed at some point if that was our policy and other measures didn't work.
Was the authorization before or after 700 sites were searched and no WMDS were found? What anyone said or did in 1998 became meaningless.
Trump loves his violent extremists. Like the terrorist proud boys.Trump Attacks Bush For Speaking Out On Sept. 11 Against Violent Extremists
The 45th president says the 43rd president “shouldn’t be lecturing anybody.”www.yahoo.com
W Bush walked away from him yesterday --
Trump Attacks Bush For Speaking Out On Sept. 11 Against Violent Extremists
David Moye
Mon, September 13, 2021, 5:52 PM
Donald Trump isn’t very happy about the speech George W. Bush made on Sept. 11 condemning violent extremism here and abroad.
In fact, he went ballistic against his fellow former president in a statement released Monday in which he said the 43rd president “shouldn’t be lecturing anybody.”
Although Bush did draw a parallel between foreign and domestic extremists in Saturday’s speech, he did not explicitly mention the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters or Trump himself.
Still, Trump took it as a personal attack. So he hit back hard, pointing out that Bush is responsible “for getting us into the quicksand of the Middle East (and then not winning!)”
Trump then attacked Bush for lecturing that “terrorists on the ‘right’ are a bigger problem than those from foreign countries that hate America, and that are pouring into our Country right now.”
David Moye
Mon, September 13, 2021, 5:52 PM·2 min read
In this article:
Donald Trump
45th President of the United States
George W. Bush
43rd president of the United States
Donald Trump isn’t very happy about the speech George W. Bush made on Sept. 11 condemning violent extremism here and abroad.
In fact, he went ballistic against his fellow former president in a statement released Monday in which he said the 43rd president “shouldn’t be lecturing anybody.”
Although Bush did draw a parallel between foreign and domestic extremists in Saturday’s speech, he did not explicitly mention the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters or Trump himself.
Still, Trump took it as a personal attack. So he hit back hard, pointing out that Bush is responsible “for getting us into the quicksand of the Middle East (and then not winning!)”
Trump then attacked Bush for lecturing that “terrorists on the ‘right’ are a bigger problem than those from foreign countries that hate America, and that are pouring into our Country right now.”
I remember, after 911 we went insane, those who did not want that war were called Unamerican & not Patriot. That's when the revenge gang started wearing AMERICAN flags in & on there bodies, You know calling them self's the real Americans.Wars that most Americans enthusiastically supported when they started.
But you leave that part out.
Cheney was cherry picking the intelligence. The British started selling the war on Iraq in 1998 with Operation Mass Appeal.That is the inconvenient truth that the left doesn't want to hear.
They love to talk about the Iraq war being Bush's nightmare, he lied about WMD, etc. But when confronted with a dozen quotes of liberals saying he had WMD's and would use them, and the fact that liberals signed off on that war, they start crawfishing back into their holes like the scum they are.
They were trucking Saddam's wmds back and forth from Sudan to Syria. lolWas the authorization before or after 700 sites were searched and no WMDS were found? What anyone said or did in 1998 became meaningless.
What people said in 1998 became irrelevant when Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors searched 700 sites and came up empty. You may have forgotten that little detail. Yes, he lied about WMDs but in his defense, he didn`t know any better. Rumsfeld is burning in hell where they await Dick Cheney.That is the inconvenient truth that the left doesn't want to hear.
They love to talk about the Iraq war being Bush's nightmare, he lied about WMD, etc. But when confronted with a dozen quotes of liberals saying he had WMD's and would use them, and the fact that liberals signed off on that war, they start crawfishing back into their holes like the scum they are.
There`s no evidence of that. If I was the EVIL Saddam and I knew my country was going to be searched and ransacked, I would have held onto those mythical weapons and used them to greet the invaders. Who wouldn`t? I don`t think we would`ve tolerated UN inspectors and we too had and still have WMDs.They were trucking Saddam's wmds back and forth from Sudan to Syria. lol
I don`t know who or what a xiden is.hahah of course it wasn't meaningless, it was still our policy. Did Xiden or any dems move to resend that law? No. Why? Because things with Saddam didn't get any better. In fact, in 2002, they by in large voted to give the President to use more military authority to overthrow Saddam
well it's not my job to educate you.I don`t know who or what a xiden is.
Great show. Rin Tin Tin was of course a war hero, who fought against the tyrants....not funded them like Joey XidenMy German Shepherd is smarter than you and she only watches reruns of Rin-Tin-Tin.
I would be surprised if you ever actually had a job doing anything.well it's not my job to educate you.
What people said in 1998 became irrelevant when Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors searched 700 sites and came up empty. You may have forgotten that little detail. Yes, he lied about WMDs but in his defense, he didn`t know any better. Rumsfeld is burning in hell where they await Dick Cheney.
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002
All those quotes were prior to November 2002 and were based on accepted US Intelligence at that time
Bush lied five months later when he decided to disarm Iraq with US Troops on the ground instead of allowing the UN finish the peaceful way.
THIS IS THE MARCH 2003 W LIE no Democrat has reported seeing the intelligence W stated he had in this speech to the nation.
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.
He was talking about Iraq concealing WMD from the UN INSPECTORS at that moment in time.
DEM Quotes were based in intelligence gathered up to September 2002.
And Bush rejected a December 2002 opportunity offered by SH to let US and UK military and WMD experts into Iraq to show UN inspectors where to look if WMD was being hidden.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AFTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Sunday , December 22, 2002 WASHINGTON —Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited t in he CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain."We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.Sunday, December 22, 2002 FOX NEWS WASHINGTON — Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain."We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said.
Every dead and maimed human being and all the destroyed property and resources from March 2003 through the elimination if ISIS terrorists 15 years later is on white Evangelical Republican Christian Nationalism and George Bush for not taking Amir al Saadi up in his offer to disarm Iraq peacefully. In 2002.
Every Dem you quite would’ve sent CIA into Iraq and found nothing there. The decider and his white evangelical Christian base wanted Holy War. in 2003. Dems wanted inspections.