That I accused you of ICH?
You see how ridicluous it is to treat any criticism of Bush's foreign policy as BDS?
You're going all Larry on me again. I may be from for'n parts, but I know more US history than 95% of Americans...
Yes, Presidents get around Congressional authorisation all the time.
Usually they have some impelling reason to do so.
What was the impelling reason to invade Afghanistan pre-9/11?
Cole, Embassies? Do you remeber the shitstorm Clinton provoked, particularly from those same Republicans whose foreign policy you so admire, for the response he did give?
(and which is now seen as nothing more than pin-pricks)
Now you can either believe that Clinton and Bush were both complacent in not eliminating Al Qaeda before 9/11, or you can believe that both never saw it coming. But please dont try to pin it one rather than the other. I find that intellectually dishonest to say the least.
What was the impelling reason to invade Iraq?
Aha, here we get back to WMD, 1441 and dictatorship.
Could Clinton have done more?
Probably. Perhaps he should have sent the large force to Saudi Arabia as Bush did to get the inspectors back.
Then again, perhaps he'd have listened to what the inspectors actually said.
Was Iraq a threat to the US?
As we have seen since, no.
Were your beloved Republican hawks calling for invasion during the Clinton era? Note - not vague notions of "regime change" as many Dems and Repubs stated, but actual invasion.
If not, why not? The only voice I recall was Wolfowitz in January of 2001.
I may have missed some, feel free to correct me.
Neither Afghanistan or Iraq could have happened without the compelling factor. i.e. 9/11.
You keep your post 9/11 thinking and keep applying it in retrospect.
I'll deal in reality.
Dems and Republican politicians are as guilty as each other on basing their approval/disapproval on who is taking the action. To characterize one side as strong and the other as weak is plain wrong.
Both sides are and were lying hypocrites. Too bad this point seems lost on you.
Flame » in reply to Your Main Problem Is
re: Your Main Problem Is....what?
The whole thread (92 posts)
- A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?
- Someone who DELIBERTATELY targets non-combatants.
- That's George Bush. Read it again. (n/t)
- Your Definition Is Pretty Good
- Swinging intellectually (and wildly)
- Uh, lemme try: someone with a rag on their head? (n/t)
- My definition is a bit simpler.
- Opposed to.............?
- re: My definition is a bit simpler.
- Differences
- re: Differences
- A seven year old responds
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- Old Trick
- Another Old Trick
- Same Old Anti-war Rubbish
- re: Another Old Trick
- Maybe the point is...
- Same Old Dem Lies And Stupid Posturing
- And what would the same war have cost ten years from now?
- I didn't say there was a better way.
- Maybe the point is...
- Another Old Trick
- re: You're right, as far as it goes. (n/t)
- good bump (n/t)
- Old Trick
- You're right, as far as it goes.
- A seven year old responds
- re: Differences
