He made plenty threats that I'm sure of, it's also the fact that had he ever gained the capacity to attack us he would have in a heart beat. I also look at what he did to his own people he was just a terrible person and I for one am glad the world is rid of him.

 

I didn't know they were developing an ICBM. The presidents of Venezuela and Iran both threaten us to but we aren't invading them. Pol Pot was worse than Hussein but we didn't invade Cambodia to rid the world of him.

 

To me it was simple. 9/11 game some in the White House the excuse to rid us of Hussein and they took it. Bush believed what he was being told by other important advisors and when sold the goods he charged ahead without remorse. One of the problems I've had with Bush has been his inability to show any contrition for mistakes made and instead of correcting a course, he plows headlong into it.

 

Now that that is said, the surge worked well and I think he should get credit for that. That's the one time he seemingly corrected course and changed policy. Of course I never understood why his people believed they could accomplish the Iraqi Freedom aims without the numbers most military experts said were required to hold on to the country.

I doubt anyone will ask him anything tough tomorrow, the only time he has been asked anything tough he failed bad ( See Saddleback). When it comes to debates, being president you can't vote "present." Sorry dont like the idea of socialism or the Marxist theory.

 

Just a clarification to the voting Present attack on Obama:

 

Yes I, know you can't vote present as President(well, maybe. seee below)

 

The whole thing about Obama voting present 129 times in the Illinois state Senate (Not the US Senate as some have made it seem) makes up only about 3% of all total votes in the State Senate. Many of those votes were on ammendments or additions to bills, not the actual up or down vote for passage of bills. In state politics, the vote of "present" is a very useful political tool, to show concern without showing opposition.

 

http://www.factcheck.org

 

 

Now, for a clarification of if a President can vote an equivilant of "present"

Heres what Covercorners Constitutional Fact Check says:

 

After both houses of Congress pass a bill, the President can hold it without signing it or vetoing it. In essence, the President can choose not to take a position on it. This provision of holding a bill will result in a bills passage if the president holds it for 10 days(excluding Sundays). If there are fewer than 10 days remaining in Congress' session, and Congress adjourns before the bill is signed, it becomes a "pocket veto", even though the action is exactly the same by the President. Of course a President can use the holding of a bill as a political tool in either situation.

 

 

Once again, pardon the threadjack.

I've never said I'm not a Democrat, so I'm not sure where you have gotten that. I am a registered Democrat, that is what I registered when I was 18 years old. I have said that I am not voting for Barack Obama. Check your facts.

 

*IF I did say that somewhere, I was wrong and do not know what I was talking about.

My fault. Let me rephrase:

A pretty good job? You honestly think President Bush has done a pretty good job? :lol:

Statements like this (see above) are surely what is firing HT's feelings of disdain for what he believes are the liberal elitists.

I always have and always will agree with the war in Iraq.

Always?

Always?

 

That's what I said.

I didn't know they were developing an ICBM. The presidents of Venezuela and Iran both threaten us to but we aren't invading them. Pol Pot was worse than Hussein but we didn't invade Cambodia to rid the world of him.

 

To me it was simple. 9/11 game some in the White House the excuse to rid us of Hussein and they took it. Bush believed what he was being told by other important advisors and when sold the goods he charged ahead without remorse. One of the problems I've had with Bush has been his inability to show any contrition for mistakes made and instead of correcting a course, he plows headlong into it.

 

Now that that is said, the surge worked well and I think he should get credit for that. That's the one time he seemingly corrected course and changed policy. Of course I never understood why his people believed they could accomplish the Iraqi Freedom aims without the numbers most military experts said were required to hold on to the country.

 

Good post, Hatz! :thumb: