[quote="Pick Axe":9fc94]Iraq did not openly attack anyone, that is if you don't count their own People. What about the mass murder of Kurds? Is that not a terrorist attack?[/quote:9fc94]

As I statesd in my post, what about the mass murder and genocide of the sudanese people going on right at this very moment? Why should the US save the Kurds, but let tens of thousands of Sudanese be massacred? Why do we choose between which people we save?

[quote=ninty9]As I statesd in my post, what about the mass murder and genocide of the sudanese people going on right at this very moment? Why should the US save the Kurds, but let tens of thousands of Sudanese be massacred? Why do we choose between which people we save?[/quote:09073]

Becuase of there is oil in Iraq. We went to war because of oil. If they did not have oil, they would not have had the means to attack us.

So knowing that, why would you still vote for Bush and the Republican party?

its all about getting people to vote for blue state sucession

[quote="Duke_of_Ray":176ac][quote="Unknown_Sniper":176ac]many people probably forget that bush had no care on earth about iraq when he became president. No one gave a crap about the middle east or al queida. Yes maybe he used the hatred/panic that america was struck with to get permission to do things normally not done but remember he did what everyone wanted. We wanted him to go after Osama, we wanted him to take out sadam because of what he has done in the past and because of what he may have been planning. fact of the matter is yes you can find fault anywhere, yes people always get blamed for their mistakes, for their wrong doings, but when it comes to the good things they have done no one looks or even cares because it doesnt involve lotso f money, blood, or sex.[/quote:176ac]

Yes, nobody really cared about the terrorist. Especially Clinton who did nothing at all, thats why 9/11 happend. annoy:[/quote:176ac]

ummm 9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's term and he had ample time and intelligence to prevent the attacks. Clinton was in power for a few weeks when the WTC was first attacked and the person responsible was caught and sentanced. He also launched missle strikes on areas Bin Laden was thought to have been, so how can you claim Clinton did nothing and come to the conclusion that 9/11 happened because of any lack of effort by Clinton? Also, what has Bush done, Bin Laden is still at large and has had plenty of time to escape.

[quote=Madmartagen][quote="Duke_of_Ray":46423]Yes, nobody really cared about the terrorist. Especially Clinton who did nothing at all, thats why 9/11 happend. annoy:[/quote:46423]

ummm 9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's term and he had ample time and intelligence to prevent the attacks. Clinton was in power for a few weeks when the WTC was first attacked and the person responsible was caught and sentanced. He also launched missle strikes on areas Bin Laden was thought to have been, so how can you claim Clinton did nothing and come to the conclusion that 9/11 happened because of any lack of effort by Clinton? Also, what has Bush done, Bin Laden is still at large and has had plenty of time to escape.[/quote:46423]

He could be dead. But it's not like no one would have taken over.

Osama going under, whether it be because he's dead, or because he was hiding hasn't really quelled the Terrorists.

[quote=Quze][quote=Madmartagen]ummm 9/11 happened 9 months into Bush's term and he had ample time and intelligence to prevent the attacks. Clinton was in power for a few weeks when the WTC was first attacked and the person responsible was caught and sentanced. He also launched missle strikes on areas Bin Laden was thought to have been, so how can you claim Clinton did nothing and come to the conclusion that 9/11 happened because of any lack of effort by Clinton? Also, what has Bush done, Bin Laden is still at large and has had plenty of time to escape.[/quote:56ab7]

He could be dead. But it's not like no one would have taken over.[/quote:56ab7]
Clinton handled the whole OBL thing so poorly and it cost America in the long run. He could have taken Bin Laden out on a few occasions but didnt want the press to have a field day. Bin Laden wasnt a factor when Bush Sr was in office .

I love it how the leader is always the first to be blamed and how ill-informed so many people are... [not regarded to any certain person]

Bush is not the only one in charge. He doesn't make ALL of the decisions. He suggests them and Congress and such approve of them. It isn't just like Bush saying, "Hey, today I think I will bomb Russia..." and it happens. That would take weeks for approval by other government members.

The whole "Lets Liberate Iraq and make it Free" to me is nothing but a cover up. Bush and his Cabinet/Advisors and whatnot messed up and they knew it.