Danzig,
If you don't mind, I'll answer you over here.
You said:
"bush isn't the only one responsible for the war being put into action. what about congress? last time i checked, we had a three-pronged approach to governing this country. bush is only one branch of the three comprising the federal govt.
besides dts, you said yourself you agree with no war. so it wouldn't matter what it was about, any executive in your mind would be wrong, any reason for any war would be. bush one, reagan, fdr, equally as evil as bush? lincoln, washington, that's a hell of a list.
a country that posed 'no threat'?? you feel iraq, who went to war with one neighbor, bombed a second and invaded a third, while sending money to suicide bombers was no threat?"
1) Both Legislative branches were controlled by Bush's party at the time of the invasion. Yes, many members of the other party went along with authorizing sweeping power to wage war in 2002 by the Commander-in-chief.
Some have since claimed they were given "faulty intelligence".
Who made the decision to invade? That's obvious.
2) The invasion was a "war of choice". UN sanctons were in place and inspectors were on the ground. Saddam was contained. Bush delivered the "ultimatum" to vacate Baghdad within 48 hours, remember?
3) As I have previously stated, war should be the last option, and only when invasions or realistic threat of same exists. The Iraq debacle wasn't a "defensive war".
I could go on about the rewriting of the Constitution, lack of judicial oversight, and many other consequences of the action initiated by the present administration. The consequences will be very real, and long lasting, but I'll discuss these at a later time.
Have a nice holiday.
Peace.
DTS
|