Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Here is my bottom line. If Bush acted incorrectly or illegally, those who have that belief need to address the issue.
|
Should I post a link to TFPolitics? Because a lot of us have done that, repeatedly; even in this thread, actually.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Bush made his case for war, he got approval. Bush ran for re-election on "staying the course" and won. Bush repeatedly asked for funding for the war and the funding was given. Bush appointed Sec. of Defense on the basis of his war strategy, Congress approved. Bush appointed a general on the basis of a surge strategy, Congress approved. If Congress felt Bush lacked support for the war, how do you explain their actions?
|
Most of the Democrats in the House and Senate are complete and utter cowards. They knew it was wrong, just like many Republicans, but they were more concerned with reelection than putting their career at risk by standing against a "war-time" president and a powerful executive who seem to still have at least some control over the media.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
If you want more support than what has already been provided, I can't give it to you, because there is nothing new I can add.
|
None of that is support, though. You simply gave a brief time line.
How about this? I can make a list of every single pre-war claim made by Bush or anyone under Bush, and then debunk it using information available at the time the claim was made. Would that convince you of anything? It'd really only require me to click on Host's profile and then go back a few years in his posts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
On the issue of a personal response to a threat, I accept being held accountable. I never said I had a "right to attack" you or anyone. Even when the threat is real there are legal standards which would be used to determine if the threat was in fact real and if the response to the threat was reasonable. Your example ignored these key factors and implied that I would just capriciously say someone was a threat and use that to justify an attack. I would not do that.
|
Yes, saying someone is a threat is not the same as that individual actually being a threat, and therein lies the issue. Iraq was said to have been a threat, but wasn't a threat. At all. Do you see the distinction? Using the philosophy you just posted, you would have to agree that the Bush administration was wrong.