• 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!

Has Obama been a good President?

Has Obama been a good President?


  • Total voters
    75
Better, of course not. But no Bush, no Iraq. It's just the way it was.

You have no idea what "would" have happened by now. No idea at all. To claim that you do is just kind of arrogant.
 
You have no idea what "would" have happened by now. No idea at all. To claim that you do is just kind of arrogant.

No, just correct. He and his administration pushed for it. No one else.
 
No. I'm arguing what you think that means. Sure, they were cowardly. But they did not decide to go. In fact, while giving approval, they asked him not to and promised to fight him if he went outside the UN. They merely passed the buck to him, once congress critters started losing seats by resisting it. I merely ask that we be honest about what went on. At the end of the day, Bush, and only Bush, decided.

You are refusing congress with the French and the Germans. Voting to approve use of military force is not passing the buck. The decision to go to war in Iraq was bipartisan.

Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube
 
No, just correct. He and his administration pushed for it. No one else.

Again, they had the permission of congress. Are you denying that, making excuses for it, or just ignore it.
 
Again, they had the permission of congress. Are you denying that, making excuses for it, or just ignore it.

Permission to decide. This isn't hard. If Bush. Could say no, then he was the final word. They merely left it to him to make the decision. Because they didn't declare war, did vote on the final decision, but only vote to let him decide, Bush holds Blane for HIS decision.
 
Permission to decide. This isn't hard. If Bush. Could say no, then he was the final word. They merely left it to him to make the decision. Because they didn't declare war, did vote on the final decision, but only vote to let him decide, Bush holds Blane for HIS decision.

You are making it up as you go along.
 
Your opinion.
fact.

You just don't like what he said. BUt, that is a fact. A congressional resolution authorizing the President to use force is not a vote to go to war. It's a vote to allow the President to choose war.
 
False. THe president is commander in chief---he's the decider, as Bush so eloquently put it.

The president can decide to deploy troops. Keeping them there past 90 days is up to congress. And in the case of Iraq, Bush sought that congressional approval before going to war in Iraq. You are not discussing this subject objectively. You are merely making it up as you go along, motivated only by the desire to absolve all your favorite democrats of any complicity in the decision to go to war.
 
fact.

You just don't like what he said. BUt, that is a fact. A congressional resolution authorizing the President to use force is not a vote to go to war. It's a vote to allow the President to choose war.

It amounts to pretty much the same thing. Or do you think the democrats did not know that war was imminent.
 
It amounts to pretty much the same thing. Or do you think the democrats did not know that war was imminent.

Voting to authorize the use of force simply meant giving the President Congress's support. You know, showing a united front. At the time, I did not think they (Bush/Cheney) would actually be stupid enough to invade. I lost a bet on that in January 2003 in fact.
 
Voting to authorize the use of force simply meant giving the President Congress's support. You know, showing a united front. At the time, I did not think they (Bush/Cheney) would actually be stupid enough to invade. I lost a bet on that in January 2003 in fact.

Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?
 
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?

I think the vote to authorize force was a good way to make Saddam open up his country for inspection. It worked. He let the inspectors in right after the vote. However, the D were stupid to trust Bush.


Just like I was stupid to bet against him invading Iraq.
 
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?

I think the vote to authorize force was a good way to make Saddam open up his country for inspection. It worked. He let the inspectors in right after the vote. However, the D were stupid to trust Bush.


Just like I was stupid to bet against him invading Iraq.
Here's a great timeline.
Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled : NPR

Pertinent part:
The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."

U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."

Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.

Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003
The U.S. military and other members of an American-led coalition invade Iraq.

Blix says the Iraqi are cooperating, no sign of wmd found.

Bush lies or simply denies reality, ignores Blix's reports.

US invades.
 
Voting to authorize the use of force simply meant giving the President Congress's support. You know, showing a united front. At the time, I did not think they (Bush/Cheney) would actually be stupid enough to invade. I lost a bet on that in January 2003 in fact.

Be serious. All the major players in the democrat party were beating the drums of war long before Bush took office.
 
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?

The usual progressive suspects having been chastised for chanting "Bush lied to us into war" for over 10 years, when at worst he simply acted on intelligence that turned out to be inaccurate, suddenly want to absolve their favorite democrats of any complicity in the invasion of Iraq. They want to broaden the term "wrong" to "lied".......but they want to minimize a congressional vote to approve invading Iraq to "oh...we just gave him permission to decide".....despite the fact that they were beating the drums of forcefully ridding Iraq of wmds all the way back to 1998.
 
I think the vote to authorize force was a good way to make Saddam open up his country for inspection. It worked. He let the inspectors in right after the vote. However, the D were stupid to trust Bush.


Just like I was stupid to bet against him invading Iraq.

How very partisan of you. The problem was that the Saddam regime did not open up his country for inspection. He played the inspectors.
 
Here's a great timeline.
Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled : NPR

Pertinent part:


Blix says the Iraqi are cooperating, no sign of wmd found.

Bush lies or simply denies reality, ignores Blix's reports.

US invades.

Oh really?

Iraq not co-operating in arms hunt, says Blix | Mail Online

The chief UN inspector, Hans Blix, told the Security Council, meeting in open session in New York, that his teams were still not receiving adequate co-operation from the Iraqis.

He said that large quantities of missiles and deadly biological and chemical agents - including anthrax and VX nerve gas - had still not been properly accounted for by the Baghdad regime.

But, despite the growing impatience in Washington and London, there were signs that both capitals would wait for a second report from the inspectors - due on February 14 - before any move towards military action.

Dr Blix told the Security Council that while the inspectors had generally received free access to installations and sites in Iraq, they were still not getting the level of co-operation they needed.

Iraqi scientists were still refusing to speak to the inspectors without a minder present and they had not received the documentation needed to verify Iraqi claims to have destroyed old weapons programmes.

He said that Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration to the Security Council on December 7 had failed to address many of the outstanding issues raised in reports by the old inspection teams (Unscom) before they were forced to leave in 1998.

"It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch-as-catch-can," he said.
 
Back
Top Bottom