What credibility has the republicans/BUSH with so much innocent blood on their hands?

Question

Do anyone really believe that the death of Americans/Iraqis alike is love making in the middle east?
If BUSH/Republicans are dishonest regarding their war agendas, why should anyone else in America be held accountable for dihonesty?
Do any American truly beleive there is/will be victory in Iraq? If so, what is victory?

Answer 1

If credibility is measured in American/enemy (Iraqi) deaths and you state that this is your basis, let me ask you. What credibility do the democrats have namely

FDR 405,399 American deaths, 10 million Soviet, 3.5 million German, 1.5 million Japanese and 280,000 British
FDR was a Democrat

Harry Truman 54,246 American deaths, unknown enemy deaths
Harry Truman was a Democrat
JFK and LBJ 56,244 American deaths, unknown enemy deaths

Both JFK and LBJ were Democrats.

Based on your own standards, the Republicans are more credible than the Democrats

If the democrats are dishonest regarding their war agendas, why should anyone else in America be held accountable for dishonesty

I do believe that there will be victory in Iraq, if we stay. However if a democrat becomes President in 2009 and makes the mistake of pulling out of Iraq, there will be no victory. I define victory as an end to terrorist occupation of Iraq, even if that also means that we have to attack Iran.

Answer 2

The Democrats had more blood on their hands during the Clinton regime and the sanctions than in this entire war.

The Democrats and the UN had more blood on their hands with their oil-for-food scam.

And this was all without a 9/11 so therefore less deaths after a 9/11 as we have now somehow seems less brutal and more justifiable.

Also we had no 9/11 under Clinton and therefore no patriot act and yet he still signed every single piece of New World Order legislation that he could as fast as he could.He still tried to take away the 2nd amendment,he still promoted Political Correctness and thus made free speech only okay for psycho liberals.And his administration was vehemently anti-Christian too which is yet another way he tried to destroy the 1st amendment besides all of the "PC" dog crap. He threw the borders wide open which is part of why some people voted for Bush because we figured a Republican might close the borders right away,might lay off eroding our 1st and 2nd amendment rights,and might not sidle up to all of our enemies or sell them all of our military secrets.

We had far more of an out of control POLICE STATE on our hands under Bill Clinton and this was what Democrats are capable of without a 9/11 and without a patriot act?

Sorry, but they are scary.

By the way how many dictators did they hug today?

Answer 3

After a history of 2,000+ years of religious warfare in that area the odds are it will continue with the real losers the people who live in that part of the world. The only hope for any type of victory or peace is for the Muslims of the world to demand that their religion evolve from it's medieval belief that it is holy to kill infidels, to tolerance for other religions. If the Christian religion had remained as stagnant as the Muslim religion we would still be burning witches at the stake. That is how far behind us the fanatics are culturally.

Are you saying it was a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
I don't think he or his regime had much innocent blood except of those they tortured and murdered. Still most the innocent blood is on the hands of the Islamic extremists who have killed people, including other Muslims, in 13 different countries over half of which have nothing what-so-ever to do with America, Israel or "The West". Islamic extremists have murdered people in India, Indonesian, The Phillipines, Spain, England, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Africa, America, Israel, and several other places I can't recall right now. While they kill people indiscriminately, our army has gone to the most extreme lengths in history to try to only kill those who are commiting violence. There can be no doubt who is responsible for the violence - the Islamic fanatics and their medieval beliefs.

Forget Bush. He is nothing more now than a blotch in history.
I emailed him at the beginning and told him he was going to go down in history as one of the worst presidents in American history, and why. Of course there's no reason he should pay attention to me and probably just dismissed me as another crackpot. I told him America could easily defeat Iraq's army but not the Islamic fanatics. No one who had any relationship to his administration has a snowballs chance of being elected as president. Not only did they completely misunderstand the complexity of the Middle East, they also have completely failed the American middle class as far as our standard of living. However, I am not a liberal. I am an independant. So I see that the truth is that the Democrats must share much of the blame. They had the majority in congress for most of the last several decades when most of this really began.

Answer 4

Is that innocent blood like Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Wilson, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Sadaam, Adolph, Tojo, George the 3rd, Churchill, Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander had? Their dishonesty? Like FDR, LBJ, RMN used?
Take a break.

Answer 5

You are quite possible the biggest idiot. Shall I quote Democrats and their feelings toward Iraq and Sadaam. This difference is Demos were willing to wait for an attack and not republicans. Demos hate American and it's troops. Don't believe me, read and see.

Answer 6

If you Liberals want to rant and rave about innocent blood, quit murdering people on the American highways. That is what it is: murder. Stop the invasion by Mexico. Stop the murder by doctors, nurses, aides, pharmacists, and the rest of the medical profession. This is the shedding of innocent blood for no reason.
Where is your righteous indignation for all those deaths?

Answer 7

I think we're held accountable because we live in a democracy. We "voted" him in (at least that's most people believe).
I don't believe there will be a victory soon. How can we have one when we can't get a straight answer from Mr. bush as to what a victory is.

Answer 8

If the Democrats (Disserters) force a surrender, they will be the ones with the blood on their hands.

Answer 9

None whatsoever!

Answer 10

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats
"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. 

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." 
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."—John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." 
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. 

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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. 

"Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed."—Madeline Albright, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." 
Madeleine Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." 
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. 
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass 
destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"—National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement."—Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."—Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out."—Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003.

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people."—Tom Daschle in 1998.


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." 
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." 
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. 

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." 
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." 
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." 
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." 
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. 

"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.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...." 
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." 
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." 
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002. 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. 
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.