Reply With Quote
And how do you come to this conclusion?
Hmmm...it sounds like the approach you would expect the government to take when it's spending $40 billion a month on the "War on Terror."
And how do you come to this conclusion?
From what I've heard, most of the blame should be placed on Blanco and Chertoff. Blanco actually seriously hindered and delayed Federal authorities by not giving the legally required approvals in a timely manner.
Nagin's an idiot, but he did a respectable job evacuating and getting people into shelters.
Do you honestly believe that the Iraqis are happy that we chose their country as the front line of our war on terror? I mean we told them we were liberating them and now you tell me we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq..
Nagin is an idiot. I agree Blanco was as much to blame as the fed govt.
GGA, I don't think the people had a lot of choice in the
matter. I know that is a shame, but it is the truth. Saddam,
had a choice to get out of the country, if you remember,
If I remember correctly, we even found a country that
would accept him. I don't ever recall that we said we were
going to liberate them. I remember it as we were going
to take Saddam out of power. It really doesn't matter
one way or the other, we are there and what is, is what is.
What does matter is that we now have a good portion of'
the people on our side and working with us.
Your point being?
Are you ing kidding me? Bush stated this numerous times...where have you been
Your recollection sucks ass.
He did before the start of the invasion? I thought it was
UN Resolutions 1441.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441
On 12 September 2002, President Bush spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:
* "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
* U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
* Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
* Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
* Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.
Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have objections to an invasion of Iraq: Russia, People's Republic of China, and France.
On 26 September 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Iraq of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction.[citation needed]
In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.[citation needed]
The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "…all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter." Supporters of the US Administration have argued, however, that France's declaration of intent to veto any military action in Iraq effectively prevented the Security Council from remaining seized of the matter since at that point it could take no action to enforce the standing Resolutions.
"We are ready. We're prepared. And should the United States be compelled to act, our troops will be acting in the finest traditions of America. Should we be forced to act, should Saddam Hussein seals his fate by refusing to disarm, by ignoring the opinion of the world, you'll be fighting not to conquer anybody, but to liberate people."
-- George W. Bush addressing US Troops, January 3, 2003
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../03/se.01.html
thats a pretty nasty burn you've got there, ray!
Chump how do you find this so quick?
I remember hearing him say it countless times, but couldn't find it in writing
Just googled Bush liberate Iraq and refined a little once I saw a quote.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions