How is Bush not 100% responsible for what has happened to the Middle East

I challenge you...no wait...I double dare you to list those mistakes you think Obama has made.

You often hear liberals say this but they will NEVER actually admit to any mistakes. The closest you will hear them get is to say something like, "Obama wasn't hard enough on the republicans" but they will never look at an Obama policy and go, "yep, that was a bad call."

So will you be different?

 

I'm not claiming a thing, I'm giving facts.
The democrat controlled senate voted in overwhelming support to go to war in Iraq.
Hell, it only takes 67 votes to be veto proof and this senate voted 71-23
Are you wanting to rewrite history or what?

 

Being a staunch conservative libertarian, I think I'm already much different than a liberal.

 

Why bring it up unless you are trying to excuse Bush's responsibility for what happened in Iraq?

 

More Republican senators voted for the authorization to use force than Democratic senators. Your attempt to shift blame for the Republican strategy in Iraq onto the Democrats is pathetic. The only overwhelming support for Bush in Congress came from Republicans.

Also, the Iraq Resolution didn't actually support the use of force. It expressly supported diplomatic measures and only authorized Bush to use force as a last resort. The invasion of Iraq is solely the responsibility of the Bush administration.

 

And I doubt you do either, even if you were there, unless you ARE Bush, and then you're so blinded by your own evil and stupidity it doesn't matter anyway.

 

So you're saying that President Bush is the only one with intel.
Are you purposely leaving out the Senate Select Intelligence Committee who had a majority of democrat senators?
Or, are you admitting you are uninformed?

 

It is not possible to be a conservative libertarian.

That is like saying you are a Satanic Christian or something, they simply do not mesh whatsoever.

 

I'm glad we went. I would do it all over again if I could.

 

I'm not shifting blame my friend, I'm stating facts you just happen not to like.
The fact remains that the democrats led the senate and they could have voted NO, but that did not happen, now did it?

So, if one was to be fair, the blame lies on squarely on the republicans who supported it, the democrats who supported it, and the president, anyone who denies this is a lying partisan.

 

Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives' first value is negative liberty to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends. They reject liberal social engineering.[1] Frank Meyer, a co-founder of National Review has called this combination fusionism.[2][3] In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of economic principles, such as fiscal discipline, respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets[4] and the classical conservative stress on self-help and freedom of choice under a laissez-faire capitalist society with social tenets such as the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality[5] through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government.[6]


I think I know who I am.

 

Buck stops with the president. You know that.

 

A few % points maybe, but the Constitution and general modern trends of Presidential politics are very clear, as far as war powers go the buck begins and stops at the Presidency. Bush, as I said, effectively pulled a Reichstag Fire with 9/11 ( though I don't believe he started it) and had overwhelming popular support for his war which he was going to get, hell or high water.

I've always been surprised at how you conservatives forget how the Iraqis were tearing down Saddam's statues to show how much they loved their American liberators before they all became Evil, Islamic Terrorists. Iraq was Bush's war to win in the beginning and while he may have had some help starting it at first he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and bankrupt us by trying to turn the oldest civilization on Earth into West Texas on the Euphrates all by himself,

 

There is the problem, dictators and necessary evil should have never been used in the same sentence much less in a rational vocabulary.

We should have taken over the world in 1945, gave everybody the choice to become Americans or dead. This is the result of always keeping and maintaining the existence of necessary evils and a boogie man. Oh well, there's that hindsight thingy Patton warned us about.

 

Bush isn't 100% responsible since he didn't create the conditions that existed before his Presidency. Nobody can possibly be 100% responsible for anything of this magnitude.

 

How exactly were we going to conquer the world in 1945?

 

ummm, yeah - he can be. He was the president. He decided to invade Iraq. He did what he had to get the votes and support. And we went to war under his command and order.

 

We had the momentum to go all the way, and eliminate any form of communism/totalitarian dictatorship, and we had the ability to see it through. Today we have allowed too many of them to obtain strategic advantages, and we are no where as near as popular as we were in 1945. I believe most countries citizens would have revolted to be more like what the USA had to offer. We missed our, most likely, only opportunity for world peace, by coming home and rebuilding the world with its imperfect governments still intact.

 

Well, thats what you get when you group all conservatives into one ideology.
I don't know of a single conservative that considers all Iraqis as islamic terrorists, not one.
And you are wrong about "the buck stops here" meme, Congress has the power to be the ultimate decider when it comes to war, but the President and democrat led senate chose their route and will forever have to own it, whether you or I like it.

If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to lay all blame on one man, have at it, but no doubt about it, you will lose credibility in the process.

 

I think he believes we had more than 3 atom bombs at the time and some sort of plane that could overfly the entire Soviet Union. (A B29 could not) We didn't have either and just what the Soviets had in Europe at the time could have rolled right over everything we had or could have put into Western Europe in a month, while Russia remains to this day the only nation that might survive a full on atomic war. This idea that we missed our chance to rule the galaxy in 1945 is pure conservative revised and mythological history. The Soviet Union in 1945 and 1989, along with Russia in 2015, were and are two extremely different entities.

 

No I don't, when it comes to war, the buck stops with congress, read the constitution.

 

No we didn't. We were massively dependent upon strategic materials from other nations in 1945. You think Britain or France or the Soviets are going to agree to be Americans?

How are we going to kill all the British when they start bombing the Midwest with Anthrax?

 

Yes, you are shifting blame. The Iraq Resolution authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as he determined to be necessary. Congress gave him authority to make a decision. To suggest that he is not 100% responsible for the decisions he made is ridiculous. Your insinuation that the passage of this resolution signaled overwhelming support for the decision to use force in Iraq is not fact, it is a misrepresentation.

 

The British had both Anthrax and Sarin (which we had no defense against) and the Soviets had poured lots of research into Plague. If we tried to do what he suggested, they would have turned the full force of their chemical and biological weapons on us.

 

I still don't see how you can lay much blame on the Democrats. At the time the President had overwhelming popular support for war against anybody, anywhere. To oppose Vengeance for 9/11, (which is what the conservatives were pushing Iraq as, despite the fact that even this close to most lying Administration in our history couldn't manufacture evidence for that) would be political suicide; and the Senate would have given Bush his war anyway. Okay, he didn't do it entirely alone as he managed to beat lots of Democrats into agreement but saying he doesn't deserve a full lion's share of the blame is like saying Hitler's generals deserved the blame for Stalingrad.

Also, maybe we crossposted where I said that Bush had won in 2003. He unseated Saddam, he had his regime change. He could have just said "Mission Accomplished" and then GONE HOME. Instead, he spent the next decade, several trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and maybe a million dead Iraqis trying to make Baghdad capital of the 51st American state. Go ahead, blame THAT on Hillary