Don't blame Bush for the Iraq War

[SpyridonOCA]

Whenever it is profitable for Democrats to attack President Bush, they blame his administration for the war in Iraq. This attack is patently unfair and misleading, so please allow me to explain why.

When Bush first proposed a conflict in Iraq, it was the Democrats in Congress who voted for war. It was the Democratic candidates in 2002 that supported regime change in Iraq, and the Republicans won Congress only because the Democrats refused to differentiate themselves on the coming war. Why vote for the Democrats, the American people asked, if they are just Republican lite?

Furthermore, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore supported regime change from the beginning. It was Bill Clinton who, along with the United States Congress, declared regime change as the official American stance on Iraq. It was Bill Clinton who routinely bombed Iraq, in retaliation against Saddam's evasion of UN weapons inspectors. How can the Democrats fairly attack President Bush for starting the Iraq war, when it was the logical and natural conclusion of Clinton's Iraq policy?

Lastly, the United Nations Security Council refused to support the war, not because they didn't believe Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because of how much UN member nations were profiteering from the Oil for Food program. If Bush presented false intelligence in 2002, he was only presenting the same intelligence which Clinton, along with the United Nations, used to bomb Iraq in 1998.

President Bush, like Pontius Pilate, only acted within the limitations of the system which he inherited. If Bush is to blame for the Iraq war, blame also the Democrats in Congress, the Clinton administration, and the United Nations. Blame the whole global system which allowed this to happen. You can't have it both ways.

[Macarius]

Bush pressed pretty heavily for the Iraq war. He was its leading spokesperson, along with John McCain. Yes, the Democrats in Congress at the time went along with it - such was the political climate and the overwhelming strength of Bush's presidency. I do blame the democrats for not having enough backbone, and I do blame the intelligence community for completely dropping the ball, and I do blame the UN for its corruption.

But seriously - the Iraq War is Bush's baby. HE asked congress for permission to send the troops in. HE campaigned on it during the last election. HE made the order. HE gets blamed. Simple enough.

Stop worrying so much about partisanship and whether democrats or republicans are to blame for this or that.

[Dorothea]

The important part is that the surge is working and things are getting better there.

[SpyridonOCA]

Bush pressed pretty heavily for the Iraq war.

...which is why he's the perfect scapegoat.

Yes, the Democrats in Congress at the time went along with it .

They went along with it because Bill Clinton and Al Gore would have done the same. Without Operation Desert Fox, there is no Operation Iraqi Freedom.


But seriously - the Iraq War is Bush's baby. HE asked congress for permission to send the troops in. HE campaigned on it during the last election. HE made the order. HE gets blamed. Simple enough.
.

If Al Gore were president, he would have done the same thing. Don't tell yourself otherwise. Again, invading Iraq was the natural conclusion to Clinton's Iraq policy.


Stop worrying so much about partisanship and whether democrats or republicans are to blame for this or that.

All I am saying is either blame them all or don't blame at all. One cannot have it both ways.

Why is it that, once the Democrats won Congress in 2006, they continued to fund the war?

[SpyridonOCA]

Although some of them have changed their opinion since then, in 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), many key Democrats including President Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), Tom Daschle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle) and Richard A. "Dick" Gephardt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gephardt) were supporting the idea of destroying Iraq's weapons programs, using force if necessary. In February of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), former President Clinton remarked "There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us." He goes on to say "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal." and concludes "Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." [12] (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)
The Senate considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 71, which urged President Clinton "to work with Congress in furthering a long-term policy aimed at definitively ending the threat to international peace and security posed by the government of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs."[13] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1998_cr/s980128l.htm)
On October 31, 1998 Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act) which was passed by the US Congress by large bipartisan margins declaring: "It should be the policy of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." The Act encouraged measures to support an Iraqi overthrow of Saddam, but prohibited the use of the U.S. military for such a purpose. The Act provides for funding and assistance to Iraqi opposition groups. [14] (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf)

In early December of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), the British and US governments launched airstrikes against Iraq codenamed Operation Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox). The US government urged UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Butler_%28diplomat%29) to withdraw, and "[a] few hours before the attack began, 125 UN personnel were hurriedly evacuated from Baghdad to Bahrain, including inspectors from the UN Special Commission on Iraq and the International Atomic Energy Agency." [15] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,209995,00.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_government_position_on_invasion_of_IraqThose who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/general/village.jpg


Democratic politicians are such hypocrites.


Bombs, Ahoy...Iraq: From Clinton to Bush

By Joshua Frank
Counterpunch.org (http://www.counterpunch.org/)
September 25 / 6, 2004
Despite what John Kerry may say along the campaign trail, the Democratic Party is largely to blame for laying the groundwork the Republican hawks needed to justify attacking Iraq and waging Bush's greater "war on terror."
http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/092604_bombs_ahoyiraq.htm

Thanks for nothing, Bill



He will be cheered because he is not Bush, but Clinton is also to blame for the crisis over Iraq

Martin Kettle
Wednesday October 2, 2002
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,802699,00.html

[rusmeister]

Spyridon, you'll notice that your OP underlines the helplessness of the president. Remember what Douglas Adams said about him existing to deflect attention away from real power...

Democratic politicians are such hypocrites.
Are'nt they all? Aren't we all? (look out for that beam!)

[Macarius]

Obsession with politics can be spiritually unhealthy. This thread has reminded me of why I stopped following the Washington Soap Opera.

When a candidate with a real chance of getting elected and real stances on real issues shows up, then I'll get excited.

Until then I'll vote third party.

[Thekla]

I used to follow politics, too.

I gave up -- nothing changes. (another 3rd party voter here)

Per Iraq; that regions been "in our sights" for at least 100 years. It'll likely remain there another 100, regardless of the party of the office holder.

[nestoj]

Inspired by all politics threads, I found some articles which, more or less, describe what I believe is all about in the end (and it goes for any single state in the world): grab the power if you can, destroy enemies, don't be destroyed in the process. It goes from waaaay back, presidents get voted and changed but nothing really changes. The same game is played no mater what: it was deadly all along, it got deadlier, and will become even more in future. In it, nobody seeks for God, there is no faith (and here I think none of the faiths, be it Christian, Muslim or whatever) - actually there is as long as it serves the "purpose".

Setting the scene (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p0/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html)

Some don't like what they see so they add their own ideas (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20070220&articleId=4873)

Somebody might believe it (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faresponse85514/peter-c-w-flory-keith-payne-pavel-podvig-alexei-arbatov-keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/nuclear-exchange.html)

Where do I see the role of us, Orthodox Christians, and our Church in all this - to be perfectly honest - nowhere...that is not our world.

God helps

[Khaleas]

Now that's some really old news...

[nestoj]

Yea, I know, but they are still what I believe is all about...for every politician in the world (and money, just to add).

[Montalban]

Whenever it is profitable for Democrats to attack President Bush, they blame his administration for the war in Iraq. This attack is patently unfair and misleading, so please allow me to explain why.

When Bush first proposed a conflict in Iraq, it was the Democrats in Congress who voted for war. It was the Democratic candidates in 2002 that supported regime change in Iraq, and the Republicans won Congress only because the Democrats refused to differentiate themselves on the coming war. Why vote for the Democrats, the American people asked, if they are just Republican lite?

Furthermore, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore supported regime change from the beginning. It was Bill Clinton who, along with the United States Congress, declared regime change as the official American stance on Iraq. It was Bill Clinton who routinely bombed Iraq, in retaliation against Saddam's evasion of UN weapons inspectors. How can the Democrats fairly attack President Bush for starting the Iraq war, when it was the logical and natural conclusion of Clinton's Iraq policy?

Lastly, the United Nations Security Council refused to support the war, not because they didn't believe Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, but because of how much UN member nations were profiteering from the Oil for Food program. If Bush presented false intelligence in 2002, he was only presenting the same intelligence which Clinton, along with the United Nations, used to bomb Iraq in 1998.

President Bush, like Pontius Pilate, only acted within the limitations of the system which he inherited. If Bush is to blame for the Iraq war, blame also the Democrats in Congress, the Clinton administration, and the United Nations. Blame the whole global system which allowed this to happen. You can't have it both ways.

Now let's see. Bush attacks Iraq, and he's not to blame for the war?

[Khaleas]

Now let's see. Bush attacks Iraq, and he's not to blame for the war?
Of course he is partially to 'blame' (if that's the way you want to put it) but my understanding of the OP is that the process started long before Bush even came into office and they didn't just start getting new intel the day of his swearing in. When Clinton looked at the intel the democrats thought it was ok/correct, but when Bush did (esp after 9/11) look at the same intel it was suddenly not anymore...

[Montalban]

Of course he is partially to 'blame' (if that's the way you want to put it) but my understanding of the OP is that the process started long before Bush even came into office and they didn't just start getting new intel the day of his swearing in. When Clinton looked at the intel the democrats thought it was ok/correct, but when Bush did (esp after 9/11) look at the same intel it was suddenly not anymore...

Bush is the c-in-c of US forces. He reacted to 9/11 and claimed there were WMDs in Iraq - which they haven't found.

He sent the troops in, on the basis of intel presented to him (I would imagine, and not the "You tried to kill my daddy" reaction that some jokesters suggested)

Truman had a sign on his desk which read "The buck stops here"

[Khaleas]

Bush is the c-in-c of US forces. He reacted to 9/11 and claimed there were WMDs in Iraq - which they haven't found.

He sent the troops in, on the basis of intel presented to him (I would imagine, and not the "You tried to kill my daddy" reaction that some jokesters suggested)

Truman had a sign on his desk which read "The buck stops here"
I'm well aware that he is the C in C of the US forces, my husband works for him...

[Montalban]

I'm well aware that he is the C in C of the US forces, my husband works for him...

Well apparently all his intel on Iraq was leftover from the Clinton administration!

[Philothei]

Each generation (of politicians) blame the one before.....lol...

[Montalban]

Each generation (of politicians) blame the one before.....lol...

I just saw a doco on Somalia, and I'm not a Clinton fan. The way he chickened out of there and then wouldn't even consider helping in Rwanda is quite amazing.

[SpyridonOCA]

Now let's see. Bush attacks Iraq, and he's not to blame for the war?

What I'm saying is that you can't blame one man when the Democrats have acted on his side from the beginning.

[SpyridonOCA]

Each generation (of politicians) blame the one before.....lol...

This is a serious issue, please don't joke about it. Why is it that while the Democrats in Congress vote for the Iraq war, with Al Gore and Bill Clinton in support, and now, the Democrats continue to fund the war, they are allowed to assume no responsibility? That's entirely hypocritical. If Bush was wrong, so was Clinton, and so are the Democrats in Congress.

[Philothei]

Did not mean to laugh but you are right foreign policy does not change with the change of Government what is the point then??

[SpyridonOCA]

Did not mean to laugh but you are right foreign policy does not change with the change of Government what is the point then??

My point is to be realistic. The Democrats voted for war, a war they are not prepared to win. We cannot allow them to do this.

[Philothei]

I do not vote... so I am not participating in any debate... sorry my observation is that the policy does not change... that is all.. no matter who comes in...

[SpyridonOCA]

The Democrats need to admit their vote was a mistake, and discontinue funding the war, or support our troops in Iraq. They can't have it both ways. I'm sorry to have hurt or offended you.

[TheGodWhoFoundHimself]

and this whole mess you've been speaking of is exactly why ron paul should be our next president.
~smaller federal government
~no

[Montalban]

What I'm saying is that you can't blame one man when the Democrats have acted on his side from the beginning.

Who'd you say was c-in-c?

[Montalban]

This is a serious issue, please don't joke about it. Why is it that while the Democrats in Congress vote for the Iraq war, with Al Gore and Bill Clinton in support, and now, the Democrats continue to fund the war, they are allowed to assume no responsibility? That's entirely hypocritical. If Bush was wrong, so was Clinton, and so are the Democrats in Congress.

Didn't the Democrats vote for war because they believed the Bush-Powell slide-show presentation?

[SpyridonOCA]

Didn't the Democrats vote for war because they believed the Bush-Powell slide-show presentation?

The Democrats voted for war because of Bill Clinton and Al Gore supporting it with their words, policies, and actions. Let's be honest with ourselves.

[Philothei]

When the policy ever changed ?

[SpyridonOCA]

I go to a predominantly leftist college and wear a Ronald Reagan t-shirt to school. I'm not a Republican or conservative, I am more of a moderate independent, but I wonder what position Reagan would take on the Iraq war - victory or withdrawal? Whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, we have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqi people.

[EmperorConstantine]

How can you call yourself independent, when you appear to be attacking Democrats, such as myself - albeit FDR Democrat - and praising ultra-Conservatives like Reagan?

I'm sorry, but this whole premise makes little sense to me. Please, enlighten.

[SpyridonOCA]

How can you call yourself independent, when you appear to be attacking Democrats, such as myself - albeit FDR Democrat - and praising ultra-Conservatives like Reagan?

I'm sorry, but this whole premise makes little sense to me. Please, enlighten.

As an Orthodox Christian, I respect Ronald Reagan for defeating communism and, as an American, for reinvigorating our economy and national confidence. FDR, on the other hand, affectionately referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe" and gave Eastern Europe to Stalin in exchange for supporting us in the Pacific Front. That, my friend, was unacceptable. You might not like Reagan, but remember, it was the Reagan Democrats who helped Reagan win both terms, and it was the Democrats in Congress who supported Reagan's policies. Don't forget the history of your own party.

[Montalban]

The Democrats voted for war because of Bill Clinton and Al Gore supporting it with their words, policies, and actions. Let's be honest with ourselves.

Honest? You keep blame-shifting to those nasty Democrats who weren't in the White House when Bush went to war

[Montalban]

I go to a predominantly leftist college and wear a Ronald Reagan t-shirt to school. I'm not a Republican or conservative, I am more of a moderate independent, but I wonder what position Reagan would take on the Iraq war - victory or withdrawal? Whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, we have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqi people.

Reagan sold weapons to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war - making me think he was more Ferengi than human.

What do you think he would have done?

As to the 'original invasion' by which you mean the second one (you've forgotten Gulf War I, because it was less intrusive)... take this analogy.

A group of people claim you pose a threat to them, even though they're nowhere near your neighbourhood. They claim you've got weapons that can hurt them. You agree to allow the police (read UN) to inspect your house. They do. After repeated inspections you're sick of the disruptions. You stop the police. The people making the claim then come around to your house, telling the police to back off as they smash into your house and tear it up looking for those weapons. They never find them. Instead of leaving they camp in your house and say that they'll reconstruct your house they way they think is more conducive to you living a better life.

Do the people who attacked you get punished?

[SpyridonOCA]

Honest? You keep blame-shifting to those nasty Democrats who weren't in the White House when Bush went to war

My friend, I don't believe you understand what I am saying. Don't the Democrats share in responsibility for the war, given that, in 1998, Clinton declared regime change, using force, as the official American policy? Don't they share in responsibility for voting for the war and continuing, to this day, to fund it? Let's be honest and realistic.

[SpyridonOCA]

Reagan sold weapons to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war - making me think he was more Ferengi than human.


Both sides happened to be sick and dangerous, and they needed to destroy each other. Furthermore, Reagan was exonerated of having any personal involvement in Iran-Contra.



A group of people claim you pose a threat to them, even though they're nowhere near your neighbourhood. They claim you've got weapons that can hurt them. You agree to allow the police (read UN) to inspect your house. They do. After repeated inspections you're sick of the disruptions. You stop the police. The people making the claim then come around to your house, telling the police to back off as they smash into your house and tear it up looking for those weapons. They never find them. Instead of leaving they camp in your house and say that they'll reconstruct your house they way they think is more conducive to you living a better life.

Do the people who attacked you get punished?

We can say whatever we want about the unchangeable past, but what matters is the here and now. Do we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people? I believe we do. Is it not good that Saddam is no longer in power? I believe it is. Think of how many innocent Vietnamese people were killed after we pulled out of Vietnam, allowing failed strategies and defeatism to lose the war. As Americans, we cannot let that happen again.

[Montalban]

As an Orthodox Christian, I respect Ronald Reagan for defeating communism and, as an American, for reinvigorating our economy and national confidence. FDR, on the other hand, affectionately referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe" and gave Eastern Europe to Stalin in exchange for supporting us in the Pacific Front. That, my friend, was unacceptable. You might not like Reagan, but remember, it was the Reagan Democrats who helped Reagan win both terms, and it was the Democrats in Congress who supported Reagan's policies. Don't forget the history of your own party.

Communism fell whilst Bush Snr. was at the helm. If you read the populist press you'll see that the supporters of the late Pope claim either he brought Communism down, or he and the Lady of Fatima did. You've offered no proof that Communism fell because of Reagan.

Next: Stalin was nicknamed "Uncle Joe" by the Western media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Joe

FDR had words of praise for the right-wing dictator Somoza. When told of that fella's actions he said (and excuse the language, but this is a quote)
"Somoza may be a son of a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], but he's our son of a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]." (see citation below)

FDR didn't 'give' the Eastern Front to Stalin. The Eastern Front was given to Stalin by Hitler invading Stalin and creating an Eastern Front! You've a novel re-working of events.




Here's a number of 'friendly dictators (http://www.tamilnation.org/intframe/friendly_dictators.htm)'

[Montalban]

My friend, I don't believe you understand what I am saying. Don't the Democrats share in responsibility for the war, given that, in 1998, Clinton declared regime change, using force, as the official American policy? Don't they share in responsibility for voting for the war and continuing, to this day, to fund it? Let's be honest and realistic.

Then we can re-write history...

Churchill was responsible for the victory on D-Day, by supporting the man who actually made the decision.

...and give praise to the Democrats for bringing down Communism.

[Montalban]

Both sides happened to be sick and dangerous, and they needed to destroy each other. Furthermore, Reagan was exonerated of having any personal involvement in Iran-Contra.
So you want both arguments; that they needed the weapons but that Reagan had nothing to do with it?
We can say whatever we want about the unchangeable past,
Not according to you; who re-writes past events to justify any thing so long as it supports the Republicans you claim you don't support! :scratch:

but what matters is the here and now. Do we have a moral responsibility to the Iraqi people? I believe we do.
So if I smashed down your house, you wouldn't mind me living in your house and deciding how to reconstruct it?

Is it not good that Saddam is no longer in power?
What did he do wrong that wasn't supported by the US (previous administrations that supported him)
I believe it is. Think of how many innocent Vietnamese people were killed after we pulled out of Vietnam, allowing failed strategies and defeatism to lose the war.
American advisors at the end of WWII said that you could work with Ho Chi Minh.* You decided to support France and an artifical division of the nation.

*-other communists you found you could work with, such as Tito

As Americans, we cannot let that happen again.
Iraq is not Vietnam; as your Republicans keep saying ;)

I'm not American, but my dad is.

[LookUpwards]

Essentially you're right. GWB is just a front man for a power elite pulling his strings and pulling Democrat strings. However, he can choose not to obey his 'masters' although that might be at the risk of his life. Christians ought to pray hard for righteous government not controlled by corrupt elites built on money and power without principle. I believe Ron Paul is a man of principle.

[Montalban]

How can you call yourself independent, when you appear to be attacking Democrats, such as myself - albeit FDR Democrat - and praising ultra-Conservatives like Reagan?

I'm sorry, but this whole premise makes little sense to me. Please, enlighten.

SpyridonOCA seems to want to implicate the Democats in the Iraq war, but won't give them credit for anything else he considers good.


....

My mum told me that US government operatives troll fora to bolster decisions made.

I'm starting to believe her

[Montalban]

Essentially you're right. GWB is just a front man for a power elite pulling his strings and pulling Democrat strings. However, he can choose not to obey his 'masters' although that might be at the risk of his life. Christians ought to pray hard for righteous government not controlled by corrupt elites built on money and power without principle. I believe Ron Paul is a man of principle.

Except for your last sentence, of which I have no opinion I believe you've more summed up events than the previous alleged non-aligned poster

[Montalban]

I go to a predominantly leftist college and wear a Ronald Reagan t-shirt to school. I'm not a Republican or conservative, I am more of a moderate independent, but I wonder what position Reagan would take on the Iraq war - victory or withdrawal? Whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, we have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqi people.

Not only do you support the Republicans on this thread, but also here...

Right now, McCain is my number one choice. A year ago, when Obama and Hillary were already the Democratic frontrunners, I wrote in an op-ed piece that when appeals to race and gender are swept aside, McCain emerges as the more qualified candidate. I stand by that.

Credibility falls

The only time you praise the democrats is when you argue that they support Republican decisions too!

[LookUpwards]

I go to a predominantly leftist college and wear a Ronald Reagan t-shirt to school. I'm not a Republican or conservative, I am more of a moderate independent, but I wonder what position Reagan would take on the Iraq war - victory or withdrawal? Whether the original invasion was a mistake or not, we have a moral responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqi people.
Pity the administration did not think about the moral implications of invading on the basis of lies first. They planned to long before 9-11 and WMDs, as outlined in the Project for a New American Century document. Talk of 'moral duty' after all the horrendous killing and destruction is very hollow.

[EmperorConstantine]

As an Orthodox Christian, I respect Ronald Reagan for defeating communism and, as an American, for reinvigorating our economy and national confidence. FDR, on the other hand, affectionately referred to Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe" and gave Eastern Europe to Stalin in exchange for supporting us in the Pacific Front. That, my friend, was unacceptable. You might not like Reagan, but remember, it was the Reagan Democrats who helped Reagan win both terms, and it was the Democrats in Congress who supported Reagan's policies. Don't forget the history of your own party.
No, it was because people hated Jimmy Carter way too much that they voted for Reagan.

All this thread I've seen you say good things about Reagan, a poster boy Republican president, and no good things about FDR, a poster boy Democrat president. That is why I question your self-proclaimed moderateness.

[Dorothea]

Not only do you support the Republicans on this thread, but also here...



Credibility falls

The only time you praise the democrats is when you argue that they support Republican decisions too!
Well, it's refreshing to me because all I've seen from Spyridon's posts were ones of dislike for republicans and the present president and all things that are considered to be "conservative" or "republican," except for the pro-life issue. So, I do believe Spyridon was being forthright on saying he considers himself an Indy.

[Montalban]

Well, it's refreshing to me because all I've seen from Spyridon's posts were ones of dislike for republicans and the present president and all things that are considered to be "conservative" or "republican," except for the pro-life issue. So, I do believe Spyridon was being forthright on saying he considers himself an Indy.

Any examples?

[Montalban]

Pity the administration did not think about the moral implications of invading on the basis of lies first. They planned to long before 9-11 and WMDs, as outlined in the Project for a New American Century document. Talk of 'moral duty' after all the horrendous killing and destruction is very hollow.

Indeed! And as an after-thought they went to Afghanistan WHICH DID actually harbour those that had attacked the USA on 9-11

[Dorothea]

Any examples?
Read his other threads in here. :D

[Montalban]

Read his other threads in here.
So you want me to research YOUR point for YOU.

That's very convincing stuff!

[Protoevangel]

So you want me to research YOUR point for YOU.

That's very convincing stuff!
You are the one making accusations without first having done your own homework.

[Forest]

Don't blame Bush for the Iraq War Since only Bush could send the military to Iraq, he deserves the blame or credit for the Iraq war.

[Montalban]

You are the one making accusations without first having done your own homework.

So you say. But you saying so is not convcing either.

The person I responded to first has only posted here pro-Republican posts.

I noted this. I also threw in the most recent post that person had made on another thread and it was the same stuff.

Someone came and gave me their impression of that poster and stated it was contrary. They must have a reason for this impression.

I asked for any examples.

That person couldn't provide any

Clearly you are more impressed by generalisations than I (noting for the record, this generalisation)


Unless you're talking about the actual issues of the OP ;) We can discuss that.

[Montalban]

Since only Bush could send the military to Iraq, he deserves the blame or credit for the Iraq war.

Exactly. Regardless who 'supported' him, it was his decision.