The beginning of the president thinking he can get away with anything is G.W. Bush. He invaded a country for no reason, for Christ's sake. Every president since then has increasingly moved closer and closer to dictatorship, which Biden just coming right out and admitting it a few weeks ago.
shareMeet the new boss, same as the old boss...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_(1863)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
I remember when everything was "Bush's fault", then everything was "Trump's fault", and now everything actually is Biden's fault.
shareI know what you mean, but that's not the same thing I was talking about in the original post.
shareEverything was Reagan’s, North’s, Nixons fault too.
They still blame Reagan for AIDS and homelessness.
This is all the Democrat party has. And it’s all they’ve had since they killed JFK. They are intellectually bankrupt. This is what happens when you have a party that’s made up of career politicians. They bring zero to the table.
He invaded a country for no reason, for Christ's sake.
Plus congress agreed
Not one person I knew, democrat, republican, independent or otherwise, believed for a second Saddam had anything but used SCUDS in his country.
share
You must be young. Before the invasion, every nation on Earth believed Iraq still had their WMD (notice I said still). The only controversy was whether the west should invade or keep trying sanctions to force Saddam to give up his WMD. There was no country that argued that the intel was faulty. Even Sadaam didn't deny they still possessed them.
You must be old and senile. EVERY country doubted the "intel."
share
Cite just one source from any NATO country that thought that prior to the attack.
The UN inspectors knew and so did the American government.
I was in Iraq in those final months before the 2003 invasion as Deputy for Analysis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Action Team tasked with the nuclear side of the weapons inspections, while the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) worked in parallel, looking for biological and chemical weapons, as well as illicit missile programmes. We studied a few outstanding questions regarding the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme that had been discovered and dismantled in the early 1990s; we looked for new evidence and investigated leads and suspicions passed on to us by national governments; we inspected many sites and interviewed Iraqi scientists and officials in person; and we analysed the data. By early 2003 we knew at a very high level of confidence that there was no nuclear weapons effort of any kind in Iraq, and we were regularly passing this information back to the UN Security Council. We were not wrong.share
https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2023/twenty-years-ago-iraq-ignoring-expert-weapons-inspectors-proved-be-fatal-mistake
Nuclear is just one component of what constitutes "weapons of mass destruction".
Saddam *did* have chemical weapons at one point, which he used on the Kurds.
But beliefs changed when Saddam inexplicably refused UN officials access to certain sites even though he was mostly complying with the sanctions.
Odd fellow.
Still, we all know "weapons of mass destruction" was just a ploy. Neo-Conservatives were calling for an invasion of Iraq back in the 1970's. It was part of an American plan to democratize the Middle East and secure Israel.
And we fucked the Kurds because we didn't want to anger Turkey.
We "all" don't know that.
I gave you the link above where UN inspectors investigated and determined there were no nukes in Iraq. If the UN knew then US knew. This was a ploy to invade Iraq.
share
Yes, but nukes are not the only weapons considered "weapons of mass destruction".
They not only had chemical weapons at one point but used them.
As far as "ploy", my question is why? In any conspiracy theory, the first hurdle to clear is to prove motive. What did the U.N have to gain by toppling Saddam at that point if they knew he had no chemical weapons or nukes?
No, the UN said he was in the clear. George W Bush was a Neo-Con and their goal has always been regime change in the Middle East.
shareSandyR is 100% correct
shareEvery few years we have to remind people of the facts surrounding Iraq.
- Iraq did have WMDs, the US sold them to Iraq.
- the Democrat Party along with the Republican Party voted to go to war with Iraq
- Saddam did kick UN weapons inspectors out because he was trying to build nuclear weapons
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Bill Clinton - 1998
Get away with anything and it's all his fault!? He had congressional approval to go to war. Makes no sense.
According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, the United States has directly intervened militarily in at least 55 countries since 1950. This includes both overt and covert interventions, such as airstrikes, invasions, and coups. Most US citizens don't even know about many of these conflicts because the media doesn't publicize it. That, and despite being the richest nation on earth, most citizens are living paycheck to paycheck so they are just trying to get by.
This all started post WWII when the US came out on top of the rest of the world (because the greatest opposing economies were crushed through war) and decided to become world police to attempt to assert the first global dominance/rule. That's why the US has, by far, more military bases in foreign countries than any other country. To blame it on one person is absurd, especially when congress approved it, and it's been going on for far too long in US history. The whole thing is headed for disaster.