Why does everyone blame Bush for the War in Iraq?

Question

A number of well known democrats even said that Saddam Hussein was making WMDs after 1991. Clinton even said they were making them in 1998:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

A lot of democrats think this war is a mistake, yet a lot of them supported it at the time, like John Kerry:

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

Why is it the democrats can screw up and no one blames them, but when a republican screws up, he/she gets blamed?

John A: Bush started the war because the above people said it was the right thing to do. Why can't we blame them for giving false information out, since you dems think it was the wrong thing to do.

He can't end this war or the terrorists will win. And the country would be more chaotic than it already is.

imparicial: It wasn't an essay, they are quotes from democrats saying this war needed to take place.

abenezerscroogexxx: How were they misled? They found WMD's in Iraq: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Raven: Scare tactic?! What are you talking about!? If thats true, the dems bought into the 'scare tactic'!

Knikol: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...Bush knew that. But there were still terrorists in Iraq. If we just went after the terrorists who caused 9/11, we would get no where. There are a lot more terrorists out there than those who caused 9/11.

Clinton had that mindset and he did nothing to stop future attacks.

And, actually, I expected a more thorough answer.

molly: I think Afghanistan and Pakistan were the scapegoats for 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't need a scapegoat. Terrorists attacked America. We went after terrorists.

westley_foster: We did discover WMDs: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

We needed to go after Saddam. He was a madman, like you said. He murdered tons of his own people. He needed to be taken out. At least according to Nancy Pelosi:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Kevin H: You are the only one who has put a good argument against the president. But, we must go after terrorists. Written in the Koran, the Islamic holy book, In the book of Surah, it tells all followers of Islam to kill all infidels (those who do not submit to the laws of Islam). We must go after those who threaten our freedom and the freedom of others. Saddam was a threat to freedom and needed to be taken out.

pincollector: Sorry, i'm not ignorant. I use common sense in my logic.

Trevor S: I really like that answer. I knew we used the military for capitalistic purposes, but I didn't know it was on that scale. Good answer. Thanks,

burberribunni: They did find WMDs. No one except Fox told anyone about it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Daniel F: Great plan! Let's just go after the terrorists that caused 9/11! Then we'll all be safe! Do you really believe that? There are hundreds more terrorists groups out there other than Al Queada that want to destroy America.

ambientdiscord: I don't get it. this Mike Gravel guy just wants to up and leave Iraq? The country would go into a huge civil war! And he wants to just leave a few Marines there at the Embassy!? the embassy would be attacked in no time! Car bombs going off. Riots in the streets! Guns firing on every street in Iraq. Those marines would get pummeled. The Iraqis would have no control over their government. The terrorists would be funded by Iran and a few other Arab nations to take over Iraq and show the world that terrorists CAN conquer nations. It would turn into a much bigger mess than it is now.

Answer 1

Well you know what I think already just wanted to say Hi and let you know at least one person agrees with you. Have a good night!! I say give him a 3rd term. I will feel a little safer for 4 more years.

Answer 2

A fair question and I will attempt to answer it.I am a New Zealander living in Australia and it could be said that because of that the question is not relevant to me.But it is because our Prime minister has committed Australian troops to Iraq.Iraq was invaded because of very suspect intelligence,there were no weapons of mass destruction.Saddam was not a threat to the rest of the world.He was a threat to some of his people but that was an internal matter and was really no concern of the USA.The world is not a safer place because of the invasion,it is regretably far less safe.Australia is not a safer place because of our involvement in Iraq,it has made us a target for terrorism.Thinking peoople would agree that Iraq was not a haven for terrorists,so why take the war on terror there?There will be no winners in this one,anymore than in Vietnam.So in answer to your question,people blame him because he is to blame.Wars always make vast amounts of money for weapon manufacturers.I believe that the Bush family have major interests in arms companys.Perhaps there is a link there.

Answer 3

I blame him because all the idiots before him suggested that sadam was making wmd bush was the idiot to say he had proof when he did not and declare war on them. Then to justify the fact that he started an unnecisary war he told everyone that we were saving the people from a madman which is probobly true except our policy is to not get involved unless there is an imanent threat to our country or our allies.
at the same time this is going on there are major efforts going to save the world from global warming. bush is trying to put limits on global emmisions and the world grows tenser... people fail to see the apperent contridiction in all of this, we are trying to turn the world green while building iraq's new economy on the rich oil fields that they have. I see these contridictions and ask myself this, how come no one sees the same thing as I?,why are we in iraq if wwe discovered no wmd's? why are the two bigest statements America is making contradict eachother? and finaly what is to come from this all?

of couse its his fault put simply he is in charge and made all the decisions that got us were we are!

Answer 4

Because he is the President and had the final say if Saddam was that bad he should NEVER have been left in power after the gulf war and not been used as scapegoat to appease peoples anger after 9/11.
Now we are are on the verge of a full scale religious war and going to Iraq has created many more angry young men who are becoming dangerous terrorists.
We would do well to remember who put Saddam in power and the purpose it served at the time.

Answer 5

Is this a serious question?

Why would people not blame him for the war?

The UN went over looking for the WMD's but to no avail. It was then that ultra conservative groups convinced Bush to declare war on Iraq as a way of furthering our oil supply.

Answer 6

1. Media encourages everyone to hate the war.
2. Sadly, its now considered as a fad to blame everything on Bush.
3. Democrats + Media = Bush Blaming lies = Democrats win elections
4. Many Americans lack comprehension. They assume that we are the only participant in the war and that the war is only in Iraq. Of coarse the media does not tell them.

Answer 7

Just communication problems with mis interpretation, miscommunication, communication failures with communication break-down.
Just that his time in office.
All the mess creeps out while he's in office.
So everyone blindly kick him.
When the mess was created back in the past being expose with time after the mystery of us-911.
Ever wonder how he was at loss and blurr in ducking all the flying pots and pans out there.
What a mess out there.
Feel sorry for him.
Intercepted his distress signal.
So reach out and extend a helping hands.
Thanks to little horror chucky transmitting S.O.S.
Crying " Where is the love" - Mama?

Answer 8

It grow to be bush who needed to start this conflict. i grow to be all approximately oil! effortless as that. It has even pop out, that they knew that there grow to be no weapons of Mass Destruction, in spite of if it grow to be a great excuse to get his palms on oil. And why does each physique blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11 while he had no longer something in any respect have been given to do with it? it has have been given to do with a undesirable business company deal between Osama Bin encumbered and the U. S. government. with the aid of the way, no one contained in something of the international agreed to this invasion. This grow to be Propeganda with the aid of US Media that's fuelled with the aid of the U. S. government. and additionally, Freedom of Speach does no longer exist interior the rustic. Been there for myself to witness the hidden Communist time table!

Answer 9

Because President Bush Is An Idiot, And I Doubt He Can Spell That, No Not Because Hes From The South Beacuse Hes An Idiot.

Answer 10

The Bush presidency is merely the consolidation of the Clinton presidency. Clinton promoted the destruction of Yugoslavia in the interests of international capital. He bombed Iraq, increased the U.S. police state, consolidated the media and gave us NAFTA.

But Clinton didn't invent U.S. foreign policy that promotes a war agenda. Here is Major-General Smedley Butler commenting on U.S. military ventures in a speech from 1933:

-------------------------

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. . . .

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. . . .