Would he have not learned from the litany of failed occupations in recent history that invading a country is not in ones best interest?
(Afghan was also controlled by an occupation force called Taliban)
2007-03-28 05:49:06 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
short mini (below) Owning your own business has its perks.
2007-03-28 05:56:43 · update #1
he lied to create support a war in Iraq, what is to stop him from lying about Iran??????
2007-03-28 05:53:31 · answer #1 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What is a "steward of history" anyways...?
doesn't the term "steward" imply that he would have to act more often responsibly than not... he's no steward.
Ricky
"Wanna explain how someone can lie when they give ALL the information they have to the person they are supposedly lying to?
In a nice neat binder in front of them, Congress had ALL of the intelligence, INCLUDING the dissenting memorandums."
When it comes to going to war over WMDs maybe they did present ALL the evidence they had saying these were a threat... but they also DID NOT present the PLETHORA of evidence to the contrary... which leads us to the main reason Valerie Plame was outed and why it is such a large issue... There was very little evidence that we would actually find these WMDs and what they chose to capitalize on and blow out of proportion was an OBSCURE report... no other intelligence agencies could corroborate that these WMDs were big and scary or that they were real... like the boogey man under your bed.
2007-03-28 13:04:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He didn't lie to create support for the liberation of Iraq. He believed the WMDs were there just as Clinton and congress did.
So you would rather have kept Saddam in power so he could keep paying suicide bombers families and feeding people into wood chippers? He needed to be removed from power becasue we all know the spineless UN wouldn't do it. It is unfortunate that we are one of the few countries with a spine but that's the price you pay for having a moral compass.
2007-03-28 13:00:22 · answer #3 · answered by The Man from Nowhere 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most wars in history begin on lies...but the problem with that is that the playbook works. The public scratches its head trying to reconcile the facts with what's been told to them. Even the loyalists are making up more reason today why are we in Iraq. So people are more loyal than smart.
2007-03-28 12:52:42 · answer #4 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is obvious that Bush is a pathological liar. Unfortunately he would be compelled to both lie and deceive no mater what he has read or experienced in his life.
2007-03-28 13:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wanna explain how someone can lie when they give ALL the information they have to the person they are supposedly lying to?
In a nice neat binder in front of them, Congress had ALL of the intelligence, INCLUDING the dissenting memorandums.
The excuse that "I didn't read that part" doesn't cut it with me.
Does it cut it with you?
2007-03-28 12:52:59 · answer #6 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
any politician who would be a steward of history would just make it to their liking(witness jimmy carter)
2007-03-28 12:55:10 · answer #7 · answered by mike_dooley49 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
he had a reason ALREADY TO GOAFTER SADDAM 12 UN RESOLUTIONS and his father did not finish the job, thats reason enough for me
2007-03-28 12:52:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you spend a lot of time on here
go big blue go
2007-03-28 12:53:29 · answer #9 · answered by short minivan 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
hes probably writing that chapter as we type.
2007-03-28 12:57:18 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋