why didn't they criticize bush invading afghanistan?
601605
Last time I checked, we didn't turn Afghanistan into complete chaos.  Besides, isn't that where Osama is?  And isn't he the REAL threat, not Hussein?
214104
They didn't invade either place. I don't have the slightest idea what you're referring to. For one thing, both are long-time members of NATO.
893352
They did, but only in the short-term.  It was evident they worked in the 2004 elections, but evident that they didn't work during the recent ones.  Americans were too naive and were willing to accept the White House's explanations.  This in part was Congress' fault, too, because many legislators and senators, including Democrats, authorized the use of war without looking at all of the evidence that was available to them in 2002.
876623
an eye witness in the meeting said it was decided to attack iraq beacuse it had "better aerial targets" , when powell pointed out that iraq didnt have anything to do with it, then afghanistan was given priority and iraq was to be attacked second.\niraq had a brutal dictaor but it had the rule of law , electricty, water  and power, under the american occupation it has none or little of these things , sure saddam killed his own people but not as many as the usa. lets make this clear saddam was a secual republic , bin laden al khida were not welcomed in iraq, not because saddam was a good man but beacuse he didnt want to lose power, bush has given hope and thousands of recruits to the jihadist islamists of bin laden, bush is the best friend they have.\niran has attacked and breifly occupied greece and they are  now pushing to the medditeraina again, why becuse bush stoped their enemy saddam\n\nif like bush you dont know your history you are deemed to repeat it. apprently the usa didnt learn anything out of vietnam
247478
We fought in Afghanistan to capture Osama and friends. That was a justifiable reaction to 9-11.\nThe Iraq war was not then and is not now justifiable.\n\nI should add that the UN resolution did not authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq. Note this from a most conservative analyst, David Pyne, writing in "The American Partisan" before the war: \n"On Nov. 8, under heavy pressure from the United States, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution against Iraq mandating that it disarm itself of any remaining WMD capabilities or face 'serious consequences.' However, many of the nations that agreed to the new resolution were quick to point out that the resolution did not give the US authority to attack Iraq. The US has stated in response that it would use the resolution as authority to invade Iraq if it became evident that Iraq had failed to comply with the will of the United Nations. Iraq has since accepted the new UN resolution and agreed to allow inspectors to resume their inspections without conditions."\n\nSurely people can do better than this to justify the war! Inspections were being allowed, and inspectors publicly stated they found no WMDs, but of course we scoffed at their conclusions and unilaterally interpreted "serious consequences" as giving us the right to invade.
805844
It has been suggested that Bush feels that way. There is no doubt that he is obsessed with his place in history – even more so than your average egomaniacal politician. It might explain his apparent lack of concern for his complete failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, for allowing Israel to choke the Palestinians to death, and for further destabilizing the already volatile Middle East. And, he does maintain that he invaded Iraq on instructions from God and he began the invasion talking about it as a crusade. The US President is a very sick puppy – and very dangerous.
772536
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. What IS your point???\n \nI have been disgusted with many people in our country lately. It deeply saddens me how our country has so divided itself by way of rumors, party bickering, and accusations of all sorts about world affairs. It is just best to listen to President Bush very carefully and listen so well that you are not judging him as he talks. He is a strong leader with an immense global crisis, but not because of his own doing. If we had never invaded Iraq, do you really think that America would be free of hostile global politics. Do you think if we had a different, maybe Democratic president the past 4 years, that terrorists would just be hanging out in the Middle East playing cowboy and Indian in their little harmless terrorist training camps?
884481
In regards to the Somalia comment...President Bush Sr. promised the American people that we would send in troops to create a secure environment and then get them out.  He creates a time-table and when Clinton came into office, he followed that time-table.  The U.N. replaced the troops that we took out.  US  Defense Secretary Les Aspin was the one who denied more troops after Clinton started sending in elite forces.
656229
Clinton fired a couple of cruise missiles at Afghanistan and called it good. With so little response to this terrorist attack Osama and his network were of course encouraged to make further and more damaging attacks against America. Perhaps if a meaningful countermeasure had been taken the World Trade Center towers might still stand. All of you out their who ceaselessly bash Bush consider do you really want a president who does nothing leading our country? When we are facing an enemy who will not stop no matter how much we try to placate them. Check out Neville Chamberlain actions towards Hitler prior to World War II. Our current enemy is just as bent on destroying us as Hitler was bent on world domination. Their hatred of us goes back much further than Bush. Do not delude yourself by thinking if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE EXIST, no more no less.
1137518
Because democrats couldnt produce a candidate with the jewels to step up to the issues that America faces.You dont have to be a genious for people to respect you.You have to follow through and lead.I love Bush for that. He could give half a cracker crumb what you or any other armchair politician thinks. And if hes such a menace then you tell me when the last succeful terroist attempt was in America.huh? Im listening(crickets chirping) Thats what I thought. Those soldiers signed up for it.If they are unprepared for battle then they should have stayed home with mommy.\nAnd for you muslim sympathists, get a freakin clue.
112460
they aren't fighting to defend us sweetie......this war has nothing to do with 9/11......it has everything to do with oil and power and money.....i think that it's great that a younger person is trying to become politically active and trying to make their own opinion and i am in no way shape or form telling you that you are wrong for liking bush, b/c you are entitled to your own opinion, but you should should know all of the facts before making an opinion........especially if it is about something this important. :)
473022
This is a really poor biased question. You can't only bash Bush. Get a book on presidential history.
1071833
You are a fool.\nI hear a lot of criticism of the US.\nI hear none for the dictators that are holding the world to ransom because they happen to be sitting on a natural resource then spending the profits on warfare.\nIf the war against Saddam was wrong then why didn't HIS allies from the surrounding nations help defend Iraq.\nBecause they were glad to see him go that's why.\nHe was a threat to his neighbours.\nHe boasted about his prowess in war..\nHe was trying to buy plutonium on the black market.\n\nThis was not a war against Iraq or the Muslims....it was a war against a dictator who murdered anybody who disagreed with him.\nThe quickest way to get the US out of Iraq is to stop shooting at them, that's bloody obvious.
196713
The Bush administration didn't know the entire outline of 9/11. They only recieved a report that there's a possibility of hijacked aircrafts slamming into major US landmarks such as the World Trade Center. Yeah, there's a lot of unanswered questions on why this wasn't prevented, but you have to remember that the 20th hijacker was arrested.\nThe War in Afghanistan was started because of 9/11. The War on Iraq, on the other hand, was first campaigned for the reason of weapons of mass destruction.\nOur soldiers have made the decision to put their lives on the line to do their duty. To say whether its worth it or not is like an insult to the sacrifices they have made to do their job, whether they agree with the direction of the war or not.\nI'm not going to sound immoral here, but there's always death in war. That's obvious, old news, and not an opinion. But think about it. Was Iraq with Saddam better or not? Saddam intentionally tortured and killed his own civilians. We don't do that, and if there are cases (which there are), then those responsible were punished. \nI remember a quote I found somewhere that says "Those who do not give freedom to others do not deserve it themselves." It sound cruel, but hear me out before you stop. To me, this means those who are not under the hands of tyranny and do not think about being under it cannot judge the life of another who's life is in a bloody situation. We're there in Iraq, so at least give them a chance and when they have their government and army ready, we'll leave.
315874
it can't. despite how bush supporters will respond to this question and say "Germany took years" or "Korea didn't happen overnight", these are simply talking points from the GOP and not part of any serious discussion.\n\njust ask yourself one question:  has ANY invasion or war been about philanthropy?  it will take some reading, and you will have to read from centrists and historians who have no bias towards America nor particularly the nationalists or the right, but you can find a plethora of evidence that shows NO COUNTRY GOES TO WAR TO HELP ANOTHER COUNTRY.  it is always about economics.  always always always.  \n\nforget the details, forget what Saddam did or how bad bush hated Saddam or did we know there were WMD. don't get confused by any of these details you'll never understand nor get the straight story on.  just understand the overall picture. the US is as selfish a nation as any,  and everything we do is for selfish economic reasons, period.  have you ever heard "follow the money"  gee, why does that formula work?  because everything is about money! duh. \n\nit may be about oil and Halliburton, it may be because AIPAC bought off our government to protect Israel, it may be about stocks, it may be about any of these things, but one thing is for damn sure: it was not to free ANYONE.
1155408
People seem to have forgotten how the Taliban and rebels in Afganistan whipped the butts of the Russians when they tried to capture Afganista. The United states helped the Afganis with intel and arms, and Russia still lost. Bin laden was involved then, we supported him and his fight against the Russians. Bush policies had nothing to do with 9/11, that was a result of failed policies and promises made by Carter and his administration. It just happens that Bush was on duty when Bin laden put his plan into action. It's all about oil. It has always been about oil. Chasing down zarqawi is more for the press and to show the people back home that progress is being made in Iraq. We don't know what is really going on off camera. Zarqawi was self appoined to lead al-quida in Iraq. There have been reports that binladen didn't like him pitting shiites against sunnis and killing other muslims. The question still remains, should we be in iraq? It doesn't matter now, we are there, we need to send more troops, clean up that place and  get out. Then send our Iraq troops to Afganistan, and clean house there also, then build that darn pipeline.
152063
Oh! plese stop with the Bush bashing.Bush was'nt even president when American troops were sent in,it was Clinton and it was'nt for an Invation it was because:\n\nSrebrenica, a small Bosniak enclave on the border of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia Montenegro, was the scene for some of the worst gendercide and genocide(there was an ethnic cleansing being done) in modern Europe. \nThat is why NATO and the US sent in troops to quell the war that was going on between muslims and christians.\n\nIt was'nt an invation, Bush has invaded too much i guess...that even when American's were sent in the past to help.You think it was an invasion by Bush senior.(to my predessor)\nAmerica accomplished what it was sent out to do,that was to maintain peace.It did,America was'nt always a bully.