Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig188
from what i've read, the dems basically conceded any and all foreign policy regarding terror--they didn't want to be viewed as 'soft on terror' in the elections after 9-11. if bush suddenly had more power than he should have, i'd say more was given than taken! the blame can't rest almost entirely on bush, as the federal govt is not almost entirely vested in that branch of the fed govt. congress voted for the war, including sen kerry, yet now they 'see the light'. in other words, as polls and the wind blows...
so, if this all turns out right in the end....was all this b.s., because change wasn't affected over night, because it got difficult and sometimes ugly, suddenly unnecessary? would bush no longe be subject to calls for impeachment? if he deserves to be impeached, then so does every member of congress who voted for this. wouldn't break my heart to see that happen, cut corruption out from the core!
|
If we viewed the "case" to go to war with Iraq as courtroom, the Bush admin would be the prosecution and congress would be the jury. Now, if the jury was given false and misleading evidence, how can we blame them for coming to the wrong verdict? The part about the false and misleading evidence has been proven and now they want to turn the verdict. Unfortunately, its too late.
The spin on "why" we went to Iraq has changed so many times that its hard to keep it straight. First and foremost, we were supposedly going because Sadaam was a threat to American security with weapons of mass destruction. After it was shown that indeed that was false, it became a mission to lead the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddaam's regime and liberate them with police zones and no bid contracts. Now why are we there?
Only the blind would see any end in sight. This is a mess that will be around for years to come. And the world knows that we created it.