and bush lied. and congress knuckled under. yes.

they're all complicit. one doesn't excuse the other.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

The thing about a government is that we don't get to choose which government initiatives we wish to pay for.

In this instance I am neither defending nor attacking the wars.

In either case they were acted on by congress which is the definition of legal in our system of government.

Their constitutionality maybe questionable, but so far nobody has had the standing to bring that suit and those who likely have standing have chosen not to bring suit. Therefore, the legality and constitutionality is unquestioned.

Hopeychange that.

Whether Bush lied or not is
a) subject to interpretation
b) doesn't matter.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the the constitutional process of law-making is dependent on the veracity of elected officials.

gee, for a disinterested observer (allegedly) you always seem to end up supporting the right. what a coincidence.

__________________
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

But you are attacking Obama, who had nothing to do with the hubris generated Bush wars. And you have supported such wars in the past, so please don't try to wiggle out from under it.
It's just too bad we can't garnish the income of those that supported the wars to help pay for them.

Indeed, the Presidential Oath of Office does not require a promise to tell the truth. Does that mean we should not expect the President to do so?

I attacked President Obama? I don't think so. I merely pointed out a fact: That Bush sought and received congressional approval for his wars and Obama did not, for his war. He could still do so but has chosen not to.

Facts are what they are. Deal with it.

Only a fool expects 'truth' from a politician.

Only a Republican would say that.

Sorry, wrong again. The last time I was a registered Repo was in 1992. The last time I voted for a Repo was 2004. And no, it was not for Mr Bush.

I make no assumptions about your affiliations or voting. In this instance I merely pointed to facts that are independent of your belief or my own.

Repeat: Bush sought and received congressional approval for his wars. Obama did not. There is no judgement offered, none requested. the facts are what they are. Deal with it.

Obama says he didn't need congressional approval. Deal with it.
I didn't claim you were a Republican, but I will say you act like one when it comes to Bush's wars.

Obama says he didn't need congressional approval but when he was a senator he took the opposite side. The guy is nothing if not flexible.

Perhaps you confuse party affiliation with policy.

There are things that I believe Obama handled quite well: Egypt is an excellent example. Doesn't mean I want to have his baby. There are things he did that I think are terrible for the republic. I don't hate him because of it. Heck, between him and Bush I'd rather hang-out with Obama. But not by much. Now Clinton? I think he'd be dazzlingly informative and witty beyond belief. I'd love to buy the guy a beer. Didn't much care for his presidency.

Bot

Yet another thread brought down by stupidism. Nice going guys.

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

Yeah, it began with such promise, too.

Anybody want to buy a bridge?

Obama was not a senator when Bush was given approval.
You are nothing but uninformed.