Let's say a president told a country that there are WMD's in another country, and we must act. While acting we found that the information was obviously wrong. Should that president be held accountable for the destruction of that country?
A president will not make such a decision in a vacuum. As was the case with Iraq, people talked constantly during the run up to war. Critics were few and far between during those heady days Post 911. The few vocal ones were quickly silenced Plame affair - WikipediaBut yes - there should be accountability and reckoning for actions of this type. Unfortunately, the victors get to write the history.
Why did Obama and the Democrats win the 2008 election?
1. Obama and the Democrats had a head start as the current (at the time) president had one of the worst approval ratings in the history of the United States. The word "Republican" had a bad connotation for the last 2 years of Bush's presidency. Obama's "changing of the old guard" strategy proved to be tough to crack for Republicans, as this really resonated with (at least with moderates) the general public. 2. The Republicans had 8 whole years, and to the general public (biased or not), thought they had their chances at fixing the United States' problems. Whether you agree with this or not, when things are looking bad after a party has control for 8 years, generally there's a change of the party in power.
Why do libs avoid President Bush's Accomplishments?
Great post! Libs quake at the thought of people who do things the right way.
Why did the Bush administration keep the war in Iraq going when no WMDs were found?
Well, there's two questions in one here.First, let's address the canard that there were no WMDs found.This is a..falsity…perpetuated by any number of people and organizations. The contentions of the Western intelligence organizations weren't that Iraq had WMDs (except for old stockpiles of aging but still somewhat dangerous chemical weapons), but that Iraq was renewing their chemical weapons program and starting a nuclear weapons program. After the invasion, coalition forces discovered a number (fewer than 20, more than 10, but I don't remember the number) of mobile chemical weapons labs. They were sanitized, but were found. If I'm not mistaken, they were not in production mode, but again, the media didn't report on these much. In addition, Iraqi agents were reported in several areas of the world attempting to purchase large quantities of processed uranium ore, or yellowcake. They were in some cases swindled out if money, sold non-existent ore, or just flat turned away from suppliers who knew that selling the ore to Iraq would garner the wrath of the West. There can be no objective doubt that Iraq was trying to restart their chemical and nuclear weapons programs. The main impediment to achieving their goal was the lack of hard currency, due to Western sanctions and extreme levels of corruption within the Iraqi government.The second (first, actually) question was why the Bush administration kept the war going, even after finding that the WMD program was in the Keystone Cop/TinkerToy stage. Simple, they broke it, they bought it. Between a couple of disastrous post-invasion commanders (Sanchez, Casey), a State Department who screwed up everything they touched and an inability/unwillingness to fire and replace the State, Military and Coalition Protective Authority bosses, the downward spiral accelerated. At one point, we were taking 20-30 large rocket/mortar attacks a day, and you could tell when the sun came up by the sound of car bombs going off in Baghdad. By 2005, if the coalition had pulled out, the covert Iranian invasion/annexation of Iraq would have become overt, with devastating consequences for the region.
Why are most action heroes Republicans?
You mean actors.*