• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

US Conservative said:
The first 6 years of Obama's term were blamed on Bush...so logically everything in the first 6 (at least) of Bush's term is Clinton's fault, no?
Click to expand...

Hey, if you can show me documentation that Clinton was irresponsible in anything leading up to 9/11, I'll not deny it.
 
disneydude said:
Oh God...please no. He left a big enough mess the first time around. The last thing this country needs is GWB and/or his neo-con bedmates getting involved in Iraq again. The Bush family has priors in sending US arms covertly to rebel forces....you think we would learn from our previous mistakes.
Click to expand...

Get over it dude. :peace

There is a fair chance that for the third time in my life, 2 of the candidates I will be able to vote for will be named Bush and Clinton.

To me that is a sign of a dysfunctional voting system, intellectually bankrupt.
 
henry david said:
get over it dude. :peace

there is a fair chance that for the third time in my life, 2 of the candidates i will be able to vote for will be named bush and clinton.

To me that is a sign of a dysfunctional voting system, intellectually bankrupt.
Click to expand...

exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Montecresto said:
He did? Show that to me, and it will be near the top of the list of complaints I have with him.
Click to expand...

"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. . . ."
 
Montecresto said:
He did? Show that to me, and it will be near the top of the list of complaints I have with him.
Click to expand...

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.
Iraq Liberation Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. BJ Clinton
William J. Clinton: Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Click to expand...

There you go.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. . . ."
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.
 
US Conservative said:
The first 6 years of Obama's term were blamed on Bush...so logically everything in the first 6 (at least) of Bush's term is Clinton's fault, no?
Click to expand...

If Clinton had left the country in the same mess that GWB did, then you might actually be correct. However, he didn't, so therefore, you are absolutely wrong.
 
SBu said:
Now you know my limit. They would have to be pretty darn close to getting their hands on something like that for huge troop interventions to be necessary.

Containment isn't fast or sexy, but it's the smart move here. I would rather have ISIS with territory and fixed locations that we can monitor and hit as necessary, than an ISIS that scatters to the wind only to set up shop somewhere else.

ISIS is going to slaughter innocents whether we are involved more or not. And ISIS is not gaining much territory these days, they've expended to the borders of countries and people willing to fight them. If we can contain them and enable the locals and neighboring countries to do just that, we will see this group defeated.
Click to expand...

Not gaining much territory? Are you kidding me?????????? And just how are we containing them? They are spreading into more countries then we can contain by air strikes. The time to contain them would have been when they were only getting started in Syria and Iraq.
 
Henry David said:
Get over it dude. :peace

There is a fair chance that for the third time in my life, 2 of the candidates I will be able to vote for will be named Bush and Clinton.

To me that is a sign of a dysfunctional voting system, intellectually bankrupt.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Clinton left the country in good shape. Took a deficit and turned it into a surplus. Both of the Bushes left the country in a mess. GWB much more than his father....but there certainly is not an good argument to allow another Bush into the whitehouse after the mess of the first two.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Now you're being very silly.

He retires in two. He has no "concerns" other than how much he will charge on his speaking tours afterward used as a means of "what I really did was....."
Click to expand...

And I imagine there will be enough idiots who will pay his fees.
 
disneydude said:
If you actually believe that....then you really don't have much of a clue.
Click to expand...


Don't know why you would dispute it. The remarks of BHO and Biden are on the public record, and DoD planners all believed that a residual training/spec ops/logistics/intel force would consolidate the victory.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I asked for at least one specific GWB lie and you give me a link to a leftwing nutjob site. I'm still waiting.
Click to expand...



You know what they have on him....."Mission Accomplished"

In the grand scheme of things, were I a Republican campaign operative, I would do everything possible to encourage this line of debate...George Bush as liar.

We are seven years since he left office, since then there have been some, shall we say "winners" out of the famous Obama mouth. Imagine an add opening with a picture of Obama with a flag behind him, his practiced look of dedicated concern on his face and a voice over "The Democrats say George Bush's lies are to blame ...then the audio on Obama comes up saying "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor....." and then a text crawl on a long, long list including "mine will be the most open and accountable administration in the history of the United States."

Yeah I truly do hope they make honesty an issue.....yeah, that'll work, get people thinking about "lies"....
 
disneydude said:
LOL......oops....you've been watching too much FauxNews again. You should learn by now that you don't get accurate information. But maybe...then again....you don't want accurate information, you might enjoy living in their right-wing world of misinformation.

Here is the actual text from the incident you are referring to:

KATIE COURIC (co-host): Since being elected to office, New York's junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, managed to keep a relatively low profile until terror struck in lower Manhattan. At that moment, she was not just a senator, but a concerned parent. She recently sat down with "Dateline NBC's" Jane Pauley to talk about that morning.

PAULEY: Tuesday morning, Senator Hillary Clinton's first thought when the second plane hit was terrorists. Her next thought was Chelsea, who was not only in New York, but staying downtown.

CLINTON: She'd gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit.

PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.

CLINTON: She did hear it.

PAULEY: And to see the smoke in person, not on television.


Those damn pesky facts tripping you up again!
Click to expand...

I know that you harbor an emotional and partisan hatred of Fox News....however you assume too much. I did not read about Hillary's fabrications on Fox News. I doubt that any of the stories including the one you referred to without posting a link were completely true as Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea told (actually wrote) three different versions of the story. And I did not miss out on the fact that you did not respond to Hillary's claim of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. I suppose that is because when cornered, she admitted it was not true and stupidly pushed a yarn blaming it on lack of sleep. And how about Hillary claiming that she and Bill were stone broke when leaving the white house?
 
Top Cat said:
You of all people suggesting someone, anyone lacks credibility? HILARIOUS.
Click to expand...

Anyone using the term chickenhawk has no credibility. It is a patently stupid term that suggests that anyone who does not beat down the door at a recruiters office and demand to get into a war does not have a right to support a given military action.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I know that you harbor an emotional and partisan hatred of Fox News....however you assume too much. I did not read about Hillary's fabrications on Fox News. I doubt that any of the stories including the one you referred to without posting a link were completely true as Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea told (actually wrote) three different versions of the story. And I did not miss out on the fact that you did not respond to Hillary's claim of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. I suppose that is because when cornered, she admitted it was not true and stupidly pushed a yarn blaming it on lack of sleep. And how about Hillary claiming that she and Bill were stone broke when leaving the white house?
Click to expand...

Of course Hillary made that **** up and got busted and did what they always do. All politicians, just in case you were thinking its just a Democratic Party phenomenon, do this. And of course lefties point it out when a GOPer commits it, and the right points it out when a dem commits it, and in turn, they both excuse their own. Nothing new.
 
Montecresto said:
I'm a veteran of the Army during Carter's administration, I recall being very pumped up as a young man about Iran, and later the Falklands and Grenada. Unfortunately, young men have that chicken hawk mentality. Sometimes it is outgrown though.
Click to expand...

I am no fan of Carter....however why are you referring to him as a chickenhawk? Afterall, he did serve in the US Navy.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Not gaining much territory? Are you kidding me?????????? And just how are we containing them? They are spreading into more countries then we can contain by air strikes. The time to contain them would have been when they were only getting started in Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...

I agree. Just because it's the best strategy doesn't mean that it's being implemented well. I'm not in charge here, but I do think it's the best strategy if implemented vigorously.

It's also a little more complex. There are a number of extremist groups that have existed for a while in various places with weak security that have recently pledged allegiance to ISIS. So it would be wrong to think that the ISIS of Syria and Iraq conquered territory in Afghanistan or Libya, rather the per-existing terror groups in those location have pledged allegiance to ISIS and adopted their techniques/personae.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom