Your "bloody presidency wasn't it" comment pretty much sums up YOUR point of view. Sadly, you have swallowed the premise that the Iraq (and perhaps the actions in Afghanistan) were wrong.
You must remember that wars kill, but sometimes killing is the only solution.
Consider this -
Hussein attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, and was rebuilding his army a third time all while his people suffered for want - much of which was due to the UN sanctions imposed due to his military activities.
You also seem to forget Clinton’s sword rattling when Democrats wanted to do something about Hussein, even though they imposed restrictions on Bush Sr from doing what should have been done at the end of the Gulf War.
Whether we found any WMD was irrelevant. Hussein had already used them on his own people and on Iran. Should we have waited until he obtained more?
Should his nuclear activities have not been bombed by Israel?
You do remember the SCUD missiles, but do you know about the extremely long range (about 400 to 600 mile range) cannon he once tried to build until England stopped its parts from being delivered?
So what was your game plan?
Appeasement?
Just hope for the best?
Boy, that really worked out for the world with Hitler now didn’t it ???
THE TEA PARTIES have a function - to voice an appeal that we have had enough!
Many of us hated Bush’s bailout too, but you will recall that it happened at the end of his term.
Although earlier bailouts did occur, they were small in comparison, and certainly not a trend like Obama’s.
We are asking - When does this insanity end, cause we have had enough!
It is not just one political sphere of thought which opposes these spending sprees, but a wide spectrum of political and physophical positions.