[TheRealVille]

Where else were we at war at when we went into Iraq?

Afghanistan.

[Wildcatk23]

[quote=Wildcatk23]
Where else were we at war at when we went into Iraq?

George Bush went into Iraq with full blessing and encouragement from every major democrat player in Congress . Yeah that includes Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, and the whole merry democrat band because they looked at the exact same Intelligence reports that Bush saw. It's very easy when you really dont have an answer and really dont understand yourself, to just blame Bush. And that is all you ever have to offer on anything on just about every subject that comes up. Bush, Bush, Bush. It's all you seem to know. Being Commander in Chief, he will always be officialy tagged with the call, but like I said he received full blessing and encouragement unilaterally from almost every left wing member of Congress. How about blaming them a little as well? As I have stated, I was and still am not a fan of Bush, but he cannot be totally blamed for that whole mess.

Come on, you are offering very little in defense or are able to show a real understanding despite your googling expertise here Wildcat.

Then how are u able to fully blame Obama for everything?

Was we not in war with Afghanistan at the time?

[Wildcatk23]

You can trust this link. It was the top result from a Google search. I am sure that you can find additional evidence yourself.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Although it was from 2005, im sure that number has changed a smudge since the Obama era.

[Hoot Gibson]

Although it was from 2005, im sure that number has changed a smudge since the Obama era.

There probably have not been many surveys taken. Not many people would dispute the fact that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal and not many people would need a pollster to reach that conclusion.

[Wildcatk23]

There probably have not been many surveys taken. Not many people would dispute the fact that college professors are overwhelmingly liberal and not many people would need a pollster to reach that conclusion.

Although it pains me i can agree. Most intelligent people are liberal.

[Bob Seger]

[quote=Bob Seger]

Then how are u able to fully blame Obama for everything?

Was we not in war with Afghanistan at the time?

That is correct. The Afghanistan Invasion came after the Persian Gulf War and prior to the Iraqi invasion. But regardless, it was still fully sanctioned by both parties of Congress unanimously. Was it not?

[Hoot Gibson]

Although it pains me i can agree. Most intelligent people are liberal.

Most intelligent people are not college professors. You will learn that as you grow older. Some of the most intelligent people that I have known did not attend college at all.

Intelligence is unrelated to formal education or political ideology and it is sad that so many college educated people believe that such a link exists.

[Wildcatk23]

[quote=Wildcatk23]

That is correct. The Afghanistan Invasion came after the Persian Gulf War and prior to the Iraqi invasion. But regardless, it was still fully sanctioned by both parties of Congress unanimously. Was it not?

That it was.

Colin Powell, was a reason.

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not only said they had weapons. He said he knew where they was.

[Bob Seger]

[quote=Bob Seger]

That it was.

Colin Powell, was a reason.

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld not only said they had weapons. He said he knew where they was.

Since you admittingly know all of that , then why the singular bash of Bush for Iraq?

[TheRealThing]

W was just trying to give as good as we got. The US went to war with Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor. At that time about 2300 military personel and a number of ships, planes, aircraft hangers, buildings, you get the picture, were destroyed. Even then there were liberal looneys moaning around about how the US didn't give diplomacy a chance. None the less, Dec. 7, 1941 is a date which will live in infamy.

Fast forward to Sept. 11, 2001. Middle Eastern Islamic Extremists fly 4 high jacked airliners to their intended targets, 3 hits 1 miss. In this attack, 3000 plus or minus, innnocent civilians were killed. The results were devastating to our country. The initial dollar figure to deal with our losses was 3 trillion. I keep hearing the left hanging the blame for our sad state of economic affairs on the Bush administration. Now folks I'm no genious but I can see how far we have come in one decade. If one divides 1.5 trillion by the yearly budget shortfalls in the Bush era it becomes obvious, we're leaning on expanding our budget shortall these days by 4 times over. That isn't an example of failed economic policy. That's an example of the ravenges of war and the impact it had on our country financially. Now comes the questions which beg to asked. Would we be in this mess without the attack of Sept. 11? Would a political party of our beloved country use the attacks of 9/11 to try to get a political advantage? That would be like blaming Roosevelt for WWII.

As the direct result of the attack we had to absorb 4 years worth of deficits in one fell swoop, and that's not counting 2001's deficit. a lesser nation would have had far more repercusions to deal with by the middle and lower class than this country did. But, all that aside, I would like to suggest that Americans take a novel approach and blame the bad guys who actually deserve the blame and not the unfortunate sitting president of the time. You want to blame somebody, how bout a little less love for a president who let the opportunity slip to get Bin Laden in the first place back in the late 90's?

There is the liberal notion so many want to believe in, hence the ism in liberalism, that if we walk softly, carry a blank check and appologize for every discomfort and bad thing that has ever happened in this world that our brothers from other lands will just melt before us and rainbows will break out everywhere and blue birds will sing. Or, maybe they will continue to look for weakness to exploit. The world is a hard place. And if history is our teacher we should expect to have to support a powerful fighting force to feared by all if we want to continue to live free. To me we live in the scariest time since the days leading up to WWII, or the nuclear dread of the cold war days.

[TheRealVille]

W was just trying to give as good as we got. The US went to war with Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor. At that time about 2300 military personel and a number of ships, planes, aircraft hangers, buildings, you get the picture, were destroyed. Even then there were liberal looneys moaning around about how the US didn't give diplomacy a chance. None the less, Dec. 7, 1941 is a date which will live in infamy.

Fast forward to Sept. 11, 2001. Middle Eastern Islamic Extremists fly 4 high jacked airliners to their intended targets, 3 hits 1 miss. In this attack, 3000 plus or minus, innnocent civilians were killed. The results were devastating to our country. The initial dollar figure to deal with our losses was 3 trillion. I keep hearing the left hanging the blame for our sad state of economic affairs on the Bush administration. Now folks I'm no genious but I can see how far we have come in one decade. If one divides 1.5 trillion by the yearly budget shortfalls in the Bush era it becomes obvious, we're leaning on expanding our budget shortall these days by 4 times over. That isn't an example of failed economic policy. That's an example of the ravenges of war and the impact it had on our country financially. Now comes the questions which beg to asked. Would we be in this mess without the attack of Sept. 11? Would a political party of our beloved country use the attacks of 9/11 to try to get a political advantage? That would be like blaming Roosevelt for WWII.

As the direct result of the attack we had to absorb 4 years worth of deficits in one fell swoop, and that's not counting 2001's deficit. a lesser nation would have had far more repercusions to deal with by the middle and lower class than this country did. But, all that aside, I would like to suggest that Americans take a novel approach and blame the bad guys who actually deserve the blame and not the unfortunate sitting president of the time. You want to blame somebody, how bout a little less love for a president who let the opportunity slip to get Bin Laden in the first place back in the late 90's?

There is the liberal notion so many want to believe in, hence the ism in liberalism, that if we walk softly, carry a blank check and appologize for every discomfort and bad thing that has ever happened in this world that our brothers from other lands will just melt before us and rainbows will break out everywhere and blue birds will sing. Or, maybe they will continue to look for weakness to exploit. The world is a hard place. And if history is our teacher we should expect to have to support a powerful fighting force to feared by all if we want to continue to live free. To me we live in the scariest time since the days leading up to WWII, or the nuclear dread of the cold war days.

I don't think anybody blames Bush for the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11. It had to be done. Where people start to blame Bush, is going into Iraq right after invading Afghanistan, on the assumption that Iraq had WMD's,(which were never found) and that had nothing to do with the Al-Qaida driven 911 planes. I think that is the two wars happening at the same time that Wildcat is speaking of.

DO you think the last 2 years under any president would have been glory days?

YOu criticize Obama for totally different reasons why i criticize bush.

Yes the Debt had been took to a next level with the Obama administration.

I criticized bush for going to war with IRAQ with no evidence of anything while we was at war elsewhere.

And believe me i would trust google links to fact and detailed websites over any right winged lunatic on this website.

[OrangenowBlue]

W was just trying to give as good as we got. The US went to war with Japan after the attack at Pearl Harbor. At that time about 2300 military personel and a number of ships, planes, aircraft hangers, buildings, you get the picture, were destroyed. Even then there were liberal looneys moaning around about how the US didn't give diplomacy a chance. None the less, Dec. 7, 1941 is a date which will live in infamy.

Fast forward to Sept. 11, 2001. Middle Eastern Islamic Extremists fly 4 high jacked airliners to their intended targets, 3 hits 1 miss. In this attack, 3000 plus or minus, innnocent civilians were killed. The results were devastating to our country. The initial dollar figure to deal with our losses was 3 trillion. I keep hearing the left hanging the blame for our sad state of economic affairs on the Bush administration. Now folks I'm no genious but I can see how far we have come in one decade. If one divides 1.5 trillion by the yearly budget shortfalls in the Bush era it becomes obvious, we're leaning on expanding our budget shortall these days by 4 times over. That isn't an example of failed economic policy. That's an example of the ravenges of war and the impact it had on our country financially. Now comes the questions which beg to asked. Would we be in this mess without the attack of Sept. 11? Would a political party of our beloved country use the attacks of 9/11 to try to get a political advantage? That would be like blaming Roosevelt for WWII.

As the direct result of the attack we had to absorb 4 years worth of deficits in one fell swoop, and that's not counting 2001's deficit. a lesser nation would have had far more repercusions to deal with by the middle and lower class than this country did. But, all that aside, I would like to suggest that Americans take a novel approach and blame the bad guys who actually deserve the blame and not the unfortunate sitting president of the time. You want to blame somebody, how bout a little less love for a president who let the opportunity slip to get Bin Laden in the first place back in the late 90's?

There is the liberal notion so many want to believe in, hence the ism in liberalism, that if we walk softly, carry a blank check and appologize for every discomfort and bad thing that has ever happened in this world that our brothers from other lands will just melt before us and rainbows will break out everywhere and blue birds will sing. Or, maybe they will continue to look for weakness to exploit. The world is a hard place. And if history is our teacher we should expect to have to support a powerful fighting force to feared by all if we want to continue to live free. To me we live in the scariest time since the days leading up to WWII, or the nuclear dread of the cold war days.

Actually it was conservatives who tried to keep us out of WWII. Ole Henry Ford and Charlie Lindbergh was in bed with the Nazi's as was a Democrat by the name of Joe Kennedy. Most of the isolationists who was throwing a fit because FDR was sending arms and supplies to allies to fight Germany were Republicans who had business interests. They were perfectly content with Hitler controlling Europe. They had no choice about fighting Germany as when we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us.

[Wildcatk23]

[quote=Wildcatk23]

Since you admittingly know all of that , then why the singular bash of Bush for Iraq?

Somewhere deep down i just feel he knew.

[nky]

The war in Iraq wasn't just a Bush thing. Re read what the Democratic leadership was saying at the time. They saw the same information as the President and felt it was in the best interest of the United States for a regime change in Iraq. The problem is as the public opinions changed those Democrats for their political well being changed their mind. Kind of like I was for the war before I was against it.

[OrangenowBlue]

The war in Iraq wasn't just a Bush thing. Re read what the Democratic leadership was saying at the time. They saw the same information as the President and felt it was in the best interest of the United States for a regime change in Iraq. The problem is as the public opinions changed those Democrats for their political well being changed their mind. Kind of like I was for the war before I was against it.

Sounds like Richard Nixon and the Republicans during the Vietnam War.

[TheRealThing]

Actually it was conservatives who tried to keep us out of WWII. Ole Henry Ford and Charlie Lindbergh was in bed with the Nazi's as was a Democrat by the name of Joe Kennedy. Most of the isolationists who was throwing a fit because FDR was sending arms and supplies to allies to fight Germany were Republicans who had business interests. They were perfectly content with Hitler controlling Europe. They had no choice about fighting Germany as when we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us.

I understand that and agree with you. My point was meant to focus on on the fact that is what drew us into WWII. The people you mention were criticized for their "appeasement" view and rightly so. And my statement does look as though I was saying that all who opposed the war through the appeasement movement were liberals which is not the case as you pointed out. Seems that the liberal folks have taken the point on leading the appeasement movement in our times though.

[OrangenowBlue]

I understand that and agree with you. My point was meant to focus on on the fact that is what drew us into WWII. The people you mention were criticized for their "appeasement" view and rightly so. And my statement does look as though I was saying that all who opposed the war through the appeasement movement were liberals which is not the case as you pointed out. Seems that the liberal folks have taken the point on leading the appeasement movement in our times though.

I do agree with this statement.