Why is it that some call the Iraq war "Bush's War"?

Question

Or an illegal war for that matter? Bush did NOT do anything that would make it his war alone, or illegal. We elected him (twice), we elected the rest of the governmet officals, and they SUPPORTED the war in Iraq when they passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. The House of Representatives adopted the resolution on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133.
The Senate adopted the resolution on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23. So why are people jumping to the other side now and saying that this war is illegal and/or Bush's War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Answer 1

Nancy is that you? You really need to divorce your husband. You are killing him with your lies and accusations. You're another Cindy spouting off about things you know nothing about. You're a useless tramp. I'd almost bet you're cheating on him cause you're a typical lieberaltard.

Answer 2

The only way a president can start a war is when the country is attacked by a military force. Other than this it has to go before Congress and the Senate. The Democrats are now saying they was fooled by President Bush. Some of them are running for public office of President. If they can be fooled that easily they have no business representing the USA. The president of Iran is a much better liar and can fool more easily. You will find that people take the easy way out, blame someone else for your own actions.

Answer 3

I haven't heard anyone call it Bush's War, but it's not far from it.

Whether he purposely lied or used a source that was never checked out, he was the driving force behind that war, and although not techincally legal, it sure is unlawful.

I'm sure you remember one of his dozen speeches on the subject, or do you suffer from selective memory loss?

It doesn't matter how the House or the Senate voted because they were mislead and given false data.

You cannot put the blame on Congress when they were voting using the [false] information given to them. You know that just about every Repub says the same thing?

You guys are in denial and using pretty stupid arguments to rationalize this mess.

Then to make matters worse, nobody had a plan as to what to do in the aftermath of Saddam's regime. It's been 4 GODDAMNED YEARS and there's been no progress.

What a waste of human life and you should be pissed off that he's gotten so many soldiers killed over nothing.

Answer 4

Bush ,Cheney have pushed the war from the start and presented only the evidence that supported their plan to attack , although a vast amount of evidence did exist that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Congress was inclined to believe the information presented, But over time and politics it is quite clear that any evidence of the fact that WMD did not exist was never presented, so no discussion took place,except among those who did look into it in depth. Those that did question the evidence were quickly attacked as Saddam supporters, and various other insults designed to destroy their credibility, and careers. Many fine CIA and military careers were ended because they tried to point out contrary facts.

Any war that is initiated without direct threat to the security of a nation is a direct contravention of accepted international law. The US is an undersigning country to that international law. Presentation of false evidence is not considered acceptable in absence of direct verifiable threat.

Answer 5

I don't want to get stuck in with this but I LL give you my view.

Bush was not elected fairly originally (the votes were never recounted before he just declared himself a winner).

Secondly he claimed to go to war because he had evidence of weapons of mass destruction but this evidence was flimsy and was later found to be untrue so why are people still there?

Thirdly there would have been other means to help Iraq become more civilized that didn't involve war but he wanted to prove himself. The terrorist threat is not a country it's a religion and can't be stamped out by killing lots of people. It's a psychological war and Bush has played right into their hands and shown that western global powers are threat and pushed lots of moderate Muslims into extremism.

In UK we're particularly upset because we went to war even though the majority of people voted against it. 3 million people protested physically (demonstrated) and were ignored.

Blair only went to war because Bush did. Hence, Bush's war.

Answer 6

Its called history.....
The common view and the most accurate assessment of this situation is Bush wanted a war with Iraq for a number of reasons. Whoever he got to agree to it doesnt make a difference he was the instigator and prime mover for this military action. Besides second Iraq war has a chronic sound to it. Bush's war just sounds better.

Answer 7

Very good question. People in this country need to understand this is "OUR" war . We are in this as Americans. Americans use to have a good sense of what was right or wrong. Now all they have is a sense of what's right for me and what's wrong for me , damn everyone else. If our country would have had this attitude during WWII, we would be speaking German & Japanese now.

Answer 8

Ignorance. You are correct in everything you say. Anti war folks (are you listening Murtha and Pelosi?) are looking for an escape and don't care how they achieve it, even at the expense of our soldiers!

Answer 9

Because people realized that the lies are coming to surface and that the plan is not working.

Also, people were so eager to jump into the bandwagon is because 9/11 caused fear and confusion among the population which makes it easier for people to look for hope and answers. Bush offered hope and an answer so people trusted him initially.

Answer 10

Bush wants control of the Middle East so he can jack up oil prices and make himself and all of his friends richer.