Tweet
Re: Palin announced as Republican VP nominee.
While you've got a point Feba about Bush being blamed for most of it, there was a time when if you weren't for Bush you were going to be lynched. Being against the Patriot Act and being against the whole debacle in Iraq was so anti patriotic that you might as well have been openly supporting the Taliban.
So no, regardless of who the figure heads are, the people who voted for these actions and who were for these actions are just as much to blame IMO.
As for the military spending, I would like to see a breakdown of the costs. I've seen enough of how people spin accounting to be suspicious that they're counting everything possible into that figure, and that they don't have the fixed costs separated from the variable costs. Pulling numbers out of the air here, but if a soldier gets paid $25 an hour (I know they don't but like I said, pulling numbers out of the air here) based in the U.S then he'll still get $25/hr based in Iraq, it's not fair to toss that into the "war expenses" The extra costs of supporting a soldier in Iraq that would not have been spent if he was elsewhere however, is fair to include.
And yes I'm STILL pissed off about the reasons the B2 program was shut down. Heads should have rolled for that, that was crappy lying accounting going on there.
I don't like Bush, but he's still better than Clinton. I view the Somali incident in a rather poor light. I'll also point out that I believe Clinton laid alot of the groundwork that Bush later used to invade Iraq, so I'm not only looking at Bush here.
As far as the legality of the war in Iraq, and whether or not Bush should be impeached for it, I've this to say. One of the cease fire conditions for the Gulf War was that Iraq was supposed to destroy all biological weapons and to allow inspectors on the various sites. During Clinton's presidency, we had inspectors being thrown out of buildings, denied access, and I seem to remember at least one instance where an inspector went into a building where the people were destroying records that they were not supposed to, I could be wrong on that last bit. It's sticking in my mind that there was a village that was hit with biological weapons around this time, but I thought it was Dujail and if so that was prior to the Gulf War. There were other incidences that violated the cease fire agreement, mostly violating the no fly zones though I think.
I'm not saying that the oil and revenge were a consideration, and I'm not saying they weren't. I am saying however that Saddam violated the cease fire agreements, and continuously violated them. However you look at it we did have every right to come back and finish the job.
And I will point out again, most of these issues were during Clinton's time. Not saying he did anything bad, not saying he did anything good there. But I am saying that Bush wasn't in office yet as events started to lean back towards an invasion of Iraq.
As I said earlier, there once was a time where if you weren't for Bush you were against America. Now it seems to be if you aren't against Bush you're against America. I refuse to go with the mob just because it's the "in" thing to do. The War in Iraq was not illegal, Saddam gave us every provocation to go back in there and we actually did launch multiple minor raids against him during Clinton's time. Did that make Saddam stop? No it did not. If minor raids didn't work what's the next step then?
If you want to be mad at someone be mad at Saddam, who if he had followed the cease fire agreement that he had signed he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess.
While you've got a point Feba about Bush being blamed for most of it, there was a time when if you weren't for Bush you were going to be lynched. Being against the Patriot Act and being against the whole debacle in Iraq was so anti patriotic that you might as well have been openly supporting the Taliban.
So no, regardless of who the figure heads are, the people who voted for these actions and who were for these actions are just as much to blame IMO.
As for the military spending, I would like to see a breakdown of the costs. I've seen enough of how people spin accounting to be suspicious that they're counting everything possible into that figure, and that they don't have the fixed costs separated from the variable costs. Pulling numbers out of the air here, but if a soldier gets paid $25 an hour (I know they don't but like I said, pulling numbers out of the air here) based in the U.S then he'll still get $25/hr based in Iraq, it's not fair to toss that into the "war expenses" The extra costs of supporting a soldier in Iraq that would not have been spent if he was elsewhere however, is fair to include.
And yes I'm STILL pissed off about the reasons the B2 program was shut down. Heads should have rolled for that, that was crappy lying accounting going on there.
I don't like Bush, but he's still better than Clinton. I view the Somali incident in a rather poor light. I'll also point out that I believe Clinton laid alot of the groundwork that Bush later used to invade Iraq, so I'm not only looking at Bush here.
As far as the legality of the war in Iraq, and whether or not Bush should be impeached for it, I've this to say. One of the cease fire conditions for the Gulf War was that Iraq was supposed to destroy all biological weapons and to allow inspectors on the various sites. During Clinton's presidency, we had inspectors being thrown out of buildings, denied access, and I seem to remember at least one instance where an inspector went into a building where the people were destroying records that they were not supposed to, I could be wrong on that last bit. It's sticking in my mind that there was a village that was hit with biological weapons around this time, but I thought it was Dujail and if so that was prior to the Gulf War. There were other incidences that violated the cease fire agreement, mostly violating the no fly zones though I think.
I'm not saying that the oil and revenge were a consideration, and I'm not saying they weren't. I am saying however that Saddam violated the cease fire agreements, and continuously violated them. However you look at it we did have every right to come back and finish the job.
And I will point out again, most of these issues were during Clinton's time. Not saying he did anything bad, not saying he did anything good there. But I am saying that Bush wasn't in office yet as events started to lean back towards an invasion of Iraq.
As I said earlier, there once was a time where if you weren't for Bush you were against America. Now it seems to be if you aren't against Bush you're against America. I refuse to go with the mob just because it's the "in" thing to do. The War in Iraq was not illegal, Saddam gave us every provocation to go back in there and we actually did launch multiple minor raids against him during Clinton's time. Did that make Saddam stop? No it did not. If minor raids didn't work what's the next step then?
If you want to be mad at someone be mad at Saddam, who if he had followed the cease fire agreement that he had signed he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess.
Comment