It must be their fault because I keep reading on here statements such as, why do people keep blaming the President for the shortcomings in Iraq.
2007-01-28 05:23:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Congress did not "demand" that Bush invade Iraq--and you know it. The Congress did approve the invasion--on the basis of lies on the part of the Bush administration. It is Bush--andhis neocon supporters-who are to blame. No one else. And the blood of the soldiers you've murdered isn't going to wash off. Ever.
2007-01-28 05:31:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wrong you are Ken, or whatever you are. I applauded the fact that America was finally standing up for itself after the 8 years of the Clinton debacle, but the buttplugs on the left appear to be winning and I can see that it won't be long before we tuck our tails and run. That's exactly what the libbies want, to see America humiliated and defeated. It's too bad because we will pay the price for this down the road but just remember how many were murdered in Vietnam and Cambodia when we chickened out and ran like little whipped puppies. The liberal buttplugs from that era, like Hanoi Jane and hanoi John, have about 2 million deaths on their consciences...OOPS...I forgot, they don't have consciences.
2007-01-28 05:34:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Frankly, I hit outrage overload in the process the Florida election fiasco. i haven't stopped being that outraged in view that then, no longer for the California power disaster, the repeal of environmental protecttions the stupid reaction to 9-11, the contrived Iraq conflict, the rejection of the Geneva conventions, the stupid no toddler left untested act, the non-reaction to Katrina, the looting of the treasury and unbalancing of the fee selection, the overthrow of Aristide and tried overthrow of Chavez. it incredibly is the worst president in historical past by utilising a great margin, if I spent all of the final 6 years as offended approximately it as i became in 2001, i might have taken years off my existence. I channel my rage into disdain and condescension for each individual who voted for him in 2000 and supported him as he stole the election while he became needless to say interior the minority. I channel a number of it into my paintings besides, yet there purely isn't adequate space.
2016-11-01 12:30:22 · answer #3 · answered by wolter 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope and to be "misled" is the same as saying as being weak. If it were lies and faulty intelligence, then congress did not have to vote for the war. But they did and now they are still blaming Bush for "making them vote" for the war. Civics class used to teach how the president cannot declare war, but by the evidence on answers the teachers are slacking.
2007-01-28 05:33:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Where did Congress get the information on which they based their vote? Was it the tooth fairy? No. Was it the boogey man? No. Was it Saddam? No. Was it George Bush? Yes!
I am glad, however, that many members of Congress are now standing up against the president's falsehoods, both Democratic and Republican.
2007-01-28 05:29:13 · answer #5 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The senate and congress were mislead by the Bush admistration about the facts. They went along with the invasion. They did not demand it.
2007-01-28 05:27:02 · answer #6 · answered by afreshpath_admin 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
he cherry picked his info to suit his need to invade Iraq nothing more nothing less,we were all led astray after 9/11.at least Hillary has the balls to admit she made a mistake.
2007-01-28 05:31:27 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's the Commander-in-Chief. The buck has to stop with him, no? If things were going well, would he not be taking credit?
By the way, I love everything about your avatar.
2007-01-28 05:27:57 · answer #8 · answered by Omni D 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
yes I am
2007-01-28 05:27:54 · answer #9 · answered by glamour04111 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋