Jimmy carter had a pretty bad economy on his hands

You were half right though, Iraq government did try to have both nuclear and biological programs, both failed and they gave up in early ninties.
They did have chemical program and Saddam used it on civilians in first gulf war.

In Iraq there were no terrorists.
Saddam did NOT share power. If a cleric got too loud, cleric and his family disapeared. Iraq was blissfully terrorist free, and cells that did exist were more against Saddam then anything else.
Now Iraq is prime recruiting ground for terrorists.

Ah, thank you for the enlightenment.

You were half right though, Iraq government did try to have both nuclear and biological programs, both failed and they gave up in early ninties.
They did have chemical program and Saddam used it on civilians in first gulf war.

yeah, that sounds reasonable too.

I consider myself half of a 90s kid (I was born in 1997 too) because a lot of the cartoons, food, and fashion transferred over to the very early 2000's, so I can relate to most things, but there are some things I don't remember at all.

how would declarIng a WAR for HUMANITARIAN reasons be better? he went completely agaInst the UN, who have protectIng human rIghts as one of theIr most Important oblIgatIons, when he Invaded Iraq. and Bush's polIcIes equated to costIng about 5 trIllion. Obama's not even 1 trIllion

Actually, that was a combination of the housing bubble (a symptom left over of Clinton's handling of Fannie and Freddie) and Wall Street deregulation (the fault of congress, which from 2006 onwards was a Democratic majority)


It's so much easier to blame a scapegoat than to actually think about what you're saying.

don't forget that he was a war time president who had to spend money for the military because we were in very uncertain and dangerous conditions.
He did what was necessary to protect your sorry ass, along with the rest of us, from the potential threat to this country from the middle east. Yes he may have over spent on the issue, but remember that we did not know nearly as much then as we do now.
Obama came along and said that he would have helped the economy, but what we got was an unchanging unemployment rate of 7.8% and a deficit that has doubled every year ever sense he took office. not to mention that he is pulling troops out of the middle east, saying that there is no more terrorist threat, even though we were assaulted by terrorist and extremest on 9/11/12 that killed four people

False. The only time the country wasn't doing poorly financially was under the presidency of Andrew Jackson.

Jimmy carter had a pretty bad economy on his hands

Well, that and cutting taxes in same time you increase the spending to pay for the wars...
I only have to balance my budget, I don't have world's top economists advising me, but I know that if i make less money i have to spend less, and if i make less money and spend more thats called getting in debt.

But... we know they had nukes, and we know they transported them out... we even had sattellite pictures of the missile trucks crossing the borders that nobody seems to notice for some reason.

Not in Iraq. Terrorists HAD a weapons program, but it had failed and been abandoned years before it was found. Any satellite pictures are either not in Iraq or shopped.

In Iraq there were no terrorists.
Saddam did NOT share power. If a cleric got too loud, cleric and his family disapeared. Iraq was blissfully terrorist free, and cells that did exist were more against Saddam then anything else.
Now Iraq is prime recruiting ground for terrorists.

Ah, thank you for the enlightenment.

You were half right though, Iraq government did try to have both nuclear and biological programs, both failed and they gave up in early ninties.
They did have chemical program and Saddam used it on civilians in first gulf war.

yeah, that sounds reasonable too.

If i could give more thumbs i would. As time goes on I think people will realize he was a great president.

but he could use explosive arrows and such