Totally irrelevant. The UN didn't want to invade... fine... that makes them, what... correct? Nobody can disagree? This is not an example of the media not doing their job.
No one said that, what is being said here is that Bush was a good guy because he respect media, what media did was pedal points of the invasion that at the time and more aptly later were shown to be either untrue, or not nearly as serious as media would have had you originally believe. Thus if someone investigated further as to why the U.N. inspectors even during supposed blocking still didn't see a reason to invade. If they realized that the Kurdish defector who was supposedly from the inner ring of Saddam that later confirmed wasn't really so, when few others found it quite improbable.
I've been over this with either you or someone else on here before, and the case for there being "mythical portions" drawn up for the purpose of selling a story is not very strong.
You went over it with someone else, because I actually remember that situation and I agreed with you as I stated here in fewer words. That there were parts of the Iraq Resolution that were broken and justified military deployment, the focal points that were pedaled by the media and helped Bush gain almost universal support however not so. Fly zone violation against coalition aircraft I agree with, civilians being controlled and killed by regime did happen, funding non-Iranian backed terror groups that also didn't like the U.S. there is some reality to it.
Newly manufactured and maintained WMDs of biological and chemical origin and seeking out to arm with nuclear weapons.
Once again, parts of the Resolution
Well, apology accepted, I guess.
It's not an apology, rather a simple mistake, that you seemed to take to heart with your previous comment. So I replied in kind because you could have simply corrected with out what seems to read as malicious attempt. At least that's usually the vibe given when one accuses another of purposely misquoting.
I'm sorry the picture wasn't as supportive of Trump as other posts here. I would've thought the point was non-partisan considered to who it was attributed though, unless you're saying that the thread should be restricted to posts supportive of Trump instead.
Okay...I think you're confused, by comment isn't in defense of Trump. The image is trying to find some decency in a former president where the current lacks, as if deserved. I simply said that I disagree (which is what this thread is for) that either should be given such in this regard.
The fact you find this a defense for Trump, already makes me question this "non-partisan" ideal. So in view to what you've said I'd wish that you wouldn't read into or assume something, when I clearly didn't post any defense for Trump.
