Bush vs. Democrats

[Derek]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD. At the end of the video he speaks much more highly of America than Obama does today. Another thing he is good to point out is that it was actually March of 2000 that the market was slowing down. Bush inherited 3 consecutive quarters of economic downturn. I missed that about him in his second term.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pabk50Mm134

[cpeeks]

Derek would you please stop making up these threads trying to vindicate the failed presidency, and failed policies of the Bush administration. He was a horrible president and he failed the U.S. We are far worse off than when he took office.

[Derek]

Derek would you please stop making up these threads trying to vindicate the failed presidency, and failed policies of the Bush administration. He was a horrible president and he failed the U.S. We are far worse off than when he took office.

If that's all you have. What do you think of the democrats in that whole situation?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

[Derek]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

He inherited the Clinton Gore recession that started in March of 2000 but wasn't noticeable until 2001. Also, it's interesting you point out the housing "boom" of 1996. All that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back. That's what led to the housing meltdown of 2008. It was years in the making. Clinton punted the football to Bush basically.

[cpeeks]

Derek would you please stop making up these threads trying to vindicate the failed presidency, and failed policies of the Bush administration. He was a horrible president and he failed the U.S. We are far worse off than when he took office.

If that's all you have. What do you think of the democrats in that whole situation?

It doesnt really matter what I think because everytime I point out how Bush dropped the ball on something, it always comes back to it was Clinton's fault or the Democrats. To you Bush was a tragic figure who couldnt accomplish anything because of the democrats even though he had a republican congress for  6 years.

[Bo]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

Actually, 16 million net new jobs were created under Reagan. The 22 million figure is for Clinton. I agree with you that it's unfair to completely criticize Bush Jr. for the economy. He screwed up majorly with the housing bubble, but there was little potential for large net job creation under his watch (since he entered office with a very low unemployment of 4.2%) and there was nothing he could have done to prevent the dot-com recession (the NASDAQ index collapsed dramatically before Bush took office). And yes, the economy was is pretty good shape between 2004 and 2007, and even between 2001 and 2003 it wasn't that bad. People tend to forget the relatively good economic times that occured for most of Bush Jr.'s Presidency.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

Actually, 16 million net new jobs were created under Reagan. The 22 million figure is for Clinton. I agree with you that it's unfair to completely criticize Bush Jr. for the economy. He screwed up majorly with the housing bubble, but there was little potential for large net job creation under his watch (since he entered office with a very low unemployment of 4.2%) and there was nothing he could have done to prevent the dot-com recession (the NASDAQ index collapsed dramatically before Bush took office). And yes, the economy was is pretty good shape between 2004 and 2007, and even between 2001 and 2003 it wasn't that bad. People tend to forget the relatively good economic times that occured for most of Bush Jr.'s Presidency.

Its ironic but if Bush had caved like say in 2004 to a Minimum wage hike (politically good) the Unemployement rate would have never gotten below 5.5%, instead of reaching 4.6% in 2007. However the weak recovery from 2002-2003, only ramping up in late 2003. There really wasn't much of a chance for a rise in the minimum wage before 2007 or maybe 2006 (The GOP did bring one up for a vote in 2006, the circumstances were unacceptable to Dems however as it was tied to a permenent ending of the death tax). Yet the Democrats used this issue to hammer Bush, successfully. Clinton waited till 1997 to raise it (Four years have the economy started to recover and after the fast 1996 surge in employement). For Bush that would have put him to the third quarter 2007 which had a growth rate of 4.5% GDP and 100,000 to 200,000 jobs added each month. However even then the reports read "Economy grows strongly in third quarter, likely to be unsustainable going forward". The Credit Crunch had begun that summer, and consumers slowed spending in the first half of the year (most companies foolishly thought that it was temporary and stocked up for second half of 2007) only to have consumers dwindle in the back the school shopping season (The first time I started to worry) and vanish at Christmas.

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

He inherited the Clinton Gore recession that started in March of 2000 but wasn't noticeable until 2001. Also, it's interesting you point out the housing "boom" of 1996. All that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back. That's what led to the housing meltdown of 2008. It was years in the making. Clinton punted the football to Bush basically.

No, that is not accurate. The Housing boom grew with the economy from 1996-2001 and was very sustainable. The problem started when the economy went down but housing continued to surge forward in 2001. Most of that is probably due to the Fed, and rampant speculation in housing. Your statement "all that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back" is not only grammatically nonsensical, but also an mis-characterization combined with over generalization. Growth in housing prices are sustainable at 2% to 4% but not at 5% to 8%. As I have said several times, there were numerous factors involved and Housing prices went up acrossed all categories. You fail to take into account Fed policy responses to the Asian crisis, and the bursting of the tech bubble; speculation/House flipping, and tight zoning restrictions in Miami, LA, LV, Phoenix (FL, NV, AZ, and CA were hardest hit by the collapse as well as other cities with similar restrictions). Atlanta despite all the criticisms of uncontrolled growth and sprawl didn't experience a similar run-up like those Sunbelt cities listed above (It had looses zoning rules)

The technical recession started in March 2001 and ended in October 2001. 9/11 put a damper on growth for months eventhough the recession technically ended a few weeks later. The recession doesn't start and you notice it later. You see the signs of it coming or atlest that something is coming The popping of a bubble (Nasdaq in 2000 and Housing in 2006, usually a year before the recession begins. Slow downs in cosnumer spending and factory orders a few months before it begins. And usually the economy doesn't turn around in a big way till the recession has been over for quite a while (economy grew slowly in 1993 and 1994 but picked up strongly in 1995-1997, the shot up further in 1998-2001; economy was stagnant in 2002, and really took off in late 2003 comming out of the 2001 recession).

[Derek]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

Actually, 16 million net new jobs were created under Reagan. The 22 million figure is for Clinton. I agree with you that it's unfair to completely criticize Bush Jr. for the economy. He screwed up majorly with the housing bubble, but there was little potential for large net job creation under his watch (since he entered office with a very low unemployment of 4.2%) and there was nothing he could have done to prevent the dot-com recession (the NASDAQ index collapsed dramatically before Bush took office). And yes, the economy was is pretty good shape between 2004 and 2007, and even between 2001 and 2003 it wasn't that bad. People tend to forget the relatively good economic times that occured for most of Bush Jr.'s Presidency.

Its ironic but if Bush had caved like say in 2004 to a Minimum wage hike (politically good) the Unemployement rate would have never gotten below 5.5%, instead of reaching 4.6% in 2007. However the weak recovery from 2002-2003, only ramping up in late 2003. There really wasn't much of a chance for a rise in the minimum wage before 2007 or maybe 2006 (The GOP did bring one up for a vote in 2006, the circumstances were unacceptable to Dems however as it was tied to a permenent ending of the death tax). Yet the Democrats used this issue to hammer Bush, successfully. Clinton waited till 1997 to raise it (Four years have the economy started to recover and after the fast 1996 surge in employement). For Bush that would have put him to the third quarter 2007 which had a growth rate of 4.5% GDP and 100,000 to 200,000 jobs added each month. However even then the reports read "Economy grows strongly in third quarter, likely to be unsustainable going forward". The Credit Crunch had begun that summer, and consumers slowed spending in the first half of the year (most companies foolishly thought that it was temporary and stocked up for second half of 2007) only to have consumers dwindle in the back the school shopping season (The first time I started to worry) and vanish at Christmas.

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators. 

He inherited the Clinton Gore recession that started in March of 2000 but wasn't noticeable until 2001. Also, it's interesting you point out the housing "boom" of 1996. All that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back. That's what led to the housing meltdown of 2008. It was years in the making. Clinton punted the football to Bush basically.

No, that is not accurate. The Housing boom grew with the economy from 1996-2001 and was very sustainable. The problem started when the economy went down but housing continued to surge forward in 2001. Most of that is probably due to the Fed, and rampant speculation in housing. Your statement "all that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back" is not only grammatically nonsensical, but also an mis-characterization combined with over generalization. Growth in housing prices are sustainable at 2% to 4% but not at 5% to 8%. As I have said several times, there were numerous factors involved and Housing prices went up acrossed all categories. You fail to take into account Fed policy responses to the Asian crisis, and the bursting of the tech bubble; speculation/House flipping, and tight zoning restrictions in Miami, LA, LV, Phoenix (FL, NV, AZ, and CA were hardest hit by the collapse as well as other cities with similar restrictions). Atlanta despite all the criticisms of uncontrolled growth and sprawl didn't experience a similar run-up like those Sunbelt cities listed above (It had looses zoning rules)

The technical recession started in March 2001 and ended in October 2001. 9/11 put a damper on growth for months eventhough the recession technically ended a few weeks later. The recession doesn't start and you notice it later. You see the signs of it coming or atlest that something is coming The popping of a bubble (Nasdaq in 2000 and Housing in 2006, usually a year before the recession begins. Slow downs in cosnumer spending and factory orders a few months before it begins. And usually the economy doesn't turn around in a big way till the recession has been over for quite a while (economy grew slowly in 1993 and 1994 but picked up strongly in 1995-1997, the shot up further in 1998-2001; economy was stagnant in 2002, and really took off in late 2003 comming out of the 2001 recession).

Minimum wage increases always lead to more unemployment. They cause employers to sacrifice jobs so that they can increase pay for those who have been there the longest. Most people don't put that much thought into it but simple common sense and history has taught us that. When did the minimum wage last increase, hmm spring of 2007? Yes and by the fall the economy was in bad shape again.

[cpeeks]

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators.  

Actually, 16 million net new jobs were created under Reagan. The 22 million figure is for Clinton. I agree with you that it's unfair to completely criticize Bush Jr. for the economy. He screwed up majorly with the housing bubble, but there was little potential for large net job creation under his watch (since he entered office with a very low unemployment of 4.2%) and there was nothing he could have done to prevent the dot-com recession (the NASDAQ index collapsed dramatically before Bush took office). And yes, the economy was is pretty good shape between 2004 and 2007, and even between 2001 and 2003 it wasn't that bad. People tend to forget the relatively good economic times that occured for most of Bush Jr.'s Presidency.

Its ironic but if Bush had caved like say in 2004 to a Minimum wage hike (politically good) the Unemployement rate would have never gotten below 5.5%, instead of reaching 4.6% in 2007. However the weak recovery from 2002-2003, only ramping up in late 2003. There really wasn't much of a chance for a rise in the minimum wage before 2007 or maybe 2006 (The GOP did bring one up for a vote in 2006, the circumstances were unacceptable to Dems however as it was tied to a permenent ending of the death tax). Yet the Democrats used this issue to hammer Bush, successfully. Clinton waited till 1997 to raise it (Four years have the economy started to recover and after the fast 1996 surge in employement). For Bush that would have put him to the third quarter 2007 which had a growth rate of 4.5% GDP and 100,000 to 200,000 jobs added each month. However even then the reports read "Economy grows strongly in third quarter, likely to be unsustainable going forward". The Credit Crunch had begun that summer, and consumers slowed spending in the first half of the year (most companies foolishly thought that it was temporary and stocked up for second half of 2007) only to have consumers dwindle in the back the school shopping season (The first time I started to worry) and vanish at Christmas.

The economy started slowing in 2000, but it didn't go into recession till 2001. Between 2003 and 2007,  about 5 or 6 million jobs were created(The recession in 2007-2009 dropped it down to 2.5 million before he left office). But when you keep in mind that unemployement was at record lows in late 1990's, and that Unemployement only rose to 6.5% (I can't remember exactly) in the early 2000's recession. There really wasn't that many jobs that could be created before reaching 5%, certainly not the 22 Million of Reagan or the millions Clinton created. And when you consider how shaky the US economy really was do to trends that started years before Bush took office (Housing boom started in 1996, the trade deficit really started to explode upward in 1994), that we were able to get that low is a testament to the success of Bush's economic policies (Yes Al, put this one in your sig, I dare you. ). Bush's failure on the economy was due to an inherent flaw in his style, lack of attention to detail. He looked at the headline numbers but didn't pay attention to the underlying indicators.  

He inherited the Clinton Gore recession that started in March of 2000 but wasn't noticeable until 2001. Also, it's interesting you point out the housing "boom" of 1996. All that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back. That's what led to the housing meltdown of 2008. It was years in the making. Clinton punted the football to Bush basically.

No, that is not accurate. The Housing boom grew with the economy from 1996-2001 and was very sustainable. The problem started when the economy went down but housing continued to surge forward in 2001. Most of that is probably due to the Fed, and rampant speculation in housing. Your statement "all that happened were people took out loans and never paid them back" is not only grammatically nonsensical, but also an mis-characterization combined with over generalization. Growth in housing prices are sustainable at 2% to 4% but not at 5% to 8%. As I have said several times, there were numerous factors involved and Housing prices went up acrossed all categories. You fail to take into account Fed policy responses to the Asian crisis, and the bursting of the tech bubble; speculation/House flipping, and tight zoning restrictions in Miami, LA, LV, Phoenix (FL, NV, AZ, and CA were hardest hit by the collapse as well as other cities with similar restrictions). Atlanta despite all the criticisms of uncontrolled growth and sprawl didn't experience a similar run-up like those Sunbelt cities listed above (It had looses zoning rules)

The technical recession started in March 2001 and ended in October 2001. 9/11 put a damper on growth for months eventhough the recession technically ended a few weeks later. The recession doesn't start and you notice it later. You see the signs of it coming or atlest that something is coming The popping of a bubble (Nasdaq in 2000 and Housing in 2006, usually a year before the recession begins. Slow downs in cosnumer spending and factory orders a few months before it begins. And usually the economy doesn't turn around in a big way till the recession has been over for quite a while (economy grew slowly in 1993 and 1994 but picked up strongly in 1995-1997, the shot up further in 1998-2001; economy was stagnant in 2002, and really took off in late 2003 comming out of the 2001 recession).

Minimum wage increases always lead to more unemployment. They cause employers to sacrifice jobs so that they can increase pay for those who have been there the longest. Most people don't put that much thought into it but simple common sense and history has taught us that. When did the minimum wage last increase, hmm spring of 2007? Yes and by the fall the economy was in bad shape again.

So lets see here so far we have saying that the economic downfall, first was clintons fault of course with you everything is clintons fault, then we have you saying that the democrats, carter, and clinton conspired for thirty years to bring down the economy, and now we have you saying that a 65 cent wage increase, because the initial jump was from $5.85 to $6.50, brought about the worst worldwide recession since the great depression. LOL bra your posts get more and more ridiculous with each passing day.

[Free Palestine]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD.

None of which are reasons to invade Iraq.

[Bo]

You can't simaultaneously defend Bush Sr. for not taking out Saddam and yet criticize Clinton for the same thing. And that WMD problem could have also been taken care of if Bush allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq and finish their work instead of launching an invasion immediately.

[cpeeks]

He always does that just like with trade center attacks. He blames Clinton for 9/11, yet doesnt blame Bush Sr. for the WTC attack in 1993.

[Bo]

He always does that just like with trade center attacks. He blames Clinton for 9/11, yet doesnt blame Bush Sr. for the WTC attack in 1993.

Apparently in Derek's worldview, Republican=good and Democrat=bad.

[Derek]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD.

None of which are reasons to invade Iraq.

No I didn't give the reasons, but said Bush was clear. We went to liberate people and in the case that Saddam would have WMD. He didn't have as many as we once thought which I'm happy about. Aren't you happy there wasn't as many WMD?

[Derek]

He always does that just like with trade center attacks. He blames Clinton for 9/11, yet doesnt blame Bush Sr. for the WTC attack in 1993.

Apparently in Derek's worldview, Republican=good and Democrat=bad.

Those who see the world in black and white are often the most successful. And I never directly blamed Clinton for the first World Trade Center attack.

[Free Palestine]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD.

None of which are reasons to invade Iraq.

No I didn't give the reasons, but said Bush was clear. We went to liberate people and in the case that Saddam would have WMD. He didn't have as many as we once thought which I'm happy about. Aren't you happy there wasn't as many WMD?

There weren't any WMDs.

[cpeeks]

He always does that just like with trade center attacks. He blames Clinton for 9/11, yet doesnt blame Bush Sr. for the WTC attack in 1993.

Apparently in Derek's worldview, Republican=good and Democrat=bad.

RThose who see the world in black and white are often the most successful. And I never directly blamed Clinton for the first World Trade Center attack.

Read what I wrote genius, you blame Clinton for 9/11 but dont blame Bush Sr. for the first wtc attack, you have such double standards.

[Bo]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD.

None of which are reasons to invade Iraq.

No I didn't give the reasons, but said Bush was clear. We went to liberate people and in the case that Saddam would have WMD. He didn't have as many as we once thought which I'm happy about. Aren't you happy there wasn't as many WMD?

There weren't any WMDs.

Exactly. And that actually makes me sad, because we have spent about $730 billion that we didn't even have on an unnecessary war.

[Free Palestine]

Here it is. Bush was very clear about why we went to Iraq. He had been ignoring the UN sanctions for 11 years. At the time that his father was in office the sanctions were new. Clinton should have gotten him at a certain point but failed. The democrats were on Bush's side. Why the flip-flop? Saddam poisoning his own people was a use of WMD.

None of which are reasons to invade Iraq.

No I didn't give the reasons, but said Bush was clear. We went to liberate people and in the case that Saddam would have WMD. He didn't have as many as we once thought which I'm happy about. Aren't you happy there wasn't as many WMD?

There weren't any WMDs.

Exactly. And that actually makes me sad, because we have spent about $730 billion that we didn't even have on an unnecessary war.

Which is why preemptive war is bad.

[Derek]

Preemptive war was bad before 9/11 but now we can't be too sure. Also, there were WMD in Iraq.

[cpeeks]

Preemptive war was bad before 9/11 but now we can't be too sure. Also, there were WMD in Iraq.

[/b]

WOULD YOU QUIT FREAKING SAYING THAT LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!NO WEAPONS HAVE EVER EVER EVER EVER FREAKING EVER BEEN FOUND!!!!!!!!