# Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq?



## Gunny (Apr 25, 2009)

I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.

Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush.  Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.  

Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran.  Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran. 

Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.

Bush is certainly not responsible for his predecessor as President allowing the problem in Iraq to fester for 8 years.  Had the UN acted to enforce its resolution, the US would not have been left holding the bag.  The borders between Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were enforced by US forces at our expense.  An unacceptable, endless situation.

Saddam repeatedly provoked those forces with little to no action on the part of the US from 1991 -2003.  During that time, Saddam repeatedly was elusive, obtuse and purposefully deceitful to UN Weapons Inspectors in regard to WMD.  He is STILL accountable to the UN for several tons of WMDs/percursors. 

If he had no WMDs, then he was all the more stupid for pretending he did.  He played a high stakes game with nothing in his hand and he got called. 

I contend Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own demise.  I also contend that the responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel belongs to him, and the religious fanatics that have waged a war of terror against US, UK and Iraqi government forces since Saddam was removed from power.  

IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true.  Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East.  The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted.  The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted.  Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.

However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President.  It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.


----------



## Annie (Apr 25, 2009)

I agree and would rep, but alas.


----------



## Valerie (Apr 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> 
> Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush.  Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.
> 
> ...



You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.


----------



## NOBama (Apr 25, 2009)

Although I disagreed with Bush for not doing a "surge" much sooner than he did, which cost him my vote in '04, I can tell you what I DO believe Bush was responsible for. Bush was responsible for keeping this country safe from 9/11 through the end of his Presidency, and for that, I am grateful.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.



Depends on how you look at it.  I wouldn't say he's soley to blame, there are lots of causes. 

Though Reagan used to have a paperweight on his desk, saying "the buckeroo stops here."  It means that ultimate responsibility lies with the guy at the top. 



> Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush.  Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.
> 
> Bush is not responsible for Saddam invading Kuwait in attempt to seize Kuwait's oil to pay off Iraq's debt from its war with Iran.  Nor was Bush responsible for Saddam invading Iran.
> 
> Bush was not responsible for Saddam violating the terms of a ceasefire before the ink was dry on his signature, nor any of the times Saddam routinely violated the terms of the ceasefire from 1991 - 2003.



Agree with all that.



> Bush is certainly not responsible for his predecessor as President allowing the problem in Iraq to fester for 8 years.  Had the UN acted to enforce its resolution, the US would not have been left holding the bag.  The borders between Kuwait and Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Iraq were enforced by US forces at our expense.  An unacceptable, endless situation.



Why was it only "festering" while Clinton was president?  How about when BushI stopped the troops when they had a far more legitimate basis for deposing Hussein in 1991?

Speculation.  Partisanship.



> Saddam repeatedly provoked those forces with little to no action on the part of the US from 1991 -2003.  During that time, Saddam repeatedly was elusive, obtuse and purposefully deceitful to UN Weapons Inspectors in regard to WMD.  He is STILL accountable to the UN for several tons of WMDs/percursors.



Sadam repeatedly asserted that all the WMD he'd had was destroyed and he didn't have any left.  That was not deceitful.  



> If he had no WMDs, then he was all the more stupid for pretending he did.  He played a high stakes game with nothing in his hand and he got called.



The petty boasting of a two bit dictator who was no threat to us is a pretty lame reason to committ the nation to this war.



> I contend Saddam Hussein is responsible for his own demise.  I also contend that the responsibility for the deaths of US service personnel belongs to him, and the religious fanatics that have waged a war of terror against US, UK and Iraqi government forces since Saddam was removed from power.



The Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq.  Hussein's boasting and bragging was insufficient justification to start a war and invade and occupy.



> IMO, Bush's decision to invade Kuwait was strategically the incorrect decision, given the probable results predicted and most of those predictions coming true.  Saddam was a secular wildcard and his country divided the Middle East.  The resulting factional infighting that has come to pass was predicted.  The clash between Sunni and Shia as proxies to Saudi Arabia and Iran was predicted.  Only blind, Western political idealism would lead someone to believe Arabs would be grateful to the US as liberators rather than foreign invaders.



As stated in another thread, I agree that from a strategic perspective, particularly one based on reducing the threat of terrorism, the invasion of Iraq was a terrific blunder.



> However, to blame the deaths of US service personnel on the President is to blame the deaths of ALL US service personnel from George Washington to present date on a US President.  It's backwards-assed logic at it finest, used only by blind political partisans in yet another lame attempt to stick shit against the wall on Bush.



I don't blame Bush for insurgents pulling the trigger or setting off bombs against our guys.

I think he and his administration can fairly be blamed for making the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, which was both unnecessary and a strategic blunder.  I also blame them for misimplying to the public that Iraq was an "urgent threat" which undermined and damaged our credibility.  I blame his administration for the lax policy on torture in Iraq, which further undermined our credibility.  These things arguably contributed the the intensity of the insugency against us in Iraq.


----------



## Annie (Apr 25, 2009)

It was Saddam's fault, for not adhering to the agreements that called for armistice following Gulf I. With the 9/11 attack, we faced going to Afghanistan solely, which would have meant the jihadis would also come there. Or we could go 2 fronts, bringing the jihadis to Iraq. There's not a doubt that fighting in Afghanistan, large scale, would have been much worse. 

Bush & Co., seemed to have dropped the ball for a long while there, after catching Saddam. But eventually got that right, now it's Obama's to continue what the Iraqis and our military have paid so dearly for. 

As for Afghanistan, that's going to be Obama's from the looks of it. Hope it goes well.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Valerie said:


> You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.



In fact, Hussein relented and allowed UN inspectors into the country with free access.  They did blind inspections of hundreds of sites in late 02 and early '03, not finding any WMD where our sources said it could be found.

That should have prompted a prudent, objective government to hold off military action and let the inspectors continue to verify whether the belief that Iraq actually had WMD was accurate or not.

If in fact Husein's Iraq had had WMDs, it had had them since the mid-80s, when the Reagan administration cleared the way for Iraq to obtain otherwise restricted "dual-use" chemicals by which it could make chemical WMDs.

Ye despite the fact that by 2003, Iraq would have had WMDs for at least 15 years, there has never been any claim or evidence that Hussein ever gave any WMD to terrorists, or otherwise supported any terrorist attack.  

Thus, Iraq was no "urgent threat" in 2003, even if it did have WMDs.  The only reason to "rush to war" was if there was a concern that the inspectors would indeed verify Iraq had no WMD, thus invalidating the neocon/Bush Administrations prior goal of taking out Hussein.

Under this situation, embarking on an invasion and occupation in March 2003 was a gross strategic blunder that has greatly harmed the US.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> It was Saddam's fault, for not adhering to the agreements that called for armistice following Gulf I.



The fact that a nation does not adhere to an armistice is not necessarily justification of war, invasion, and occupation.  But in fact Iraq had eliminated its WMDs and therefore largely if not wholly abided by the UN requirements.



> With the 9/11 attack, we faced going to Afghanistan solely, which would have meant the jihadis would also come there. Or we could go 2 fronts, bringing the jihadis to Iraq. There's not a doubt that fighting in Afghanistan, large scale, would have been much worse.



The vast bulk of the insurgents in Iraq were Iraqi.  There is little to base speculation upon that they would have gone to Afghanistan to fight had there been no Iraq war.  Hussein was no friend of the Taliban -- he government didn't recognize them.



> Bush & Co., seemed to have dropped the ball for a long while there, after catching Saddam. But eventually got that right, now it's Obama's to continue what the Iraqis and our military have paid so dearly for.
> 
> As for Afghanistan, that's going to be Obama's from the looks of it. Hope it goes well.



The US has paid a huge strategic price as well as lives and treasure for the blunder in Iraq.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> ...



No, it doesn't depend on how you look at it.  I pretty-much go for the straight-up, head-on approach, calling all the spades spades.  Things always seem to come out much better than way.

There is no speculation about Clinton.  I was on mor tan one occasion part of his babysitting force.  There is absolutely nothing partisan about cstating something that is.

The argument that Bush should have continued to invade has been made and destroyed too many times.  Bush had to agree to NOT depose Saddam in order to get an airfield in SA, and unrestricted use of Arab airspace for Desert Storm.  He made an agreement and kept it.  Simple as that.

You don't know whether or not Saddam claiming all his WMDs were destroyed was deceitful or not.  The records of such events do not exist.  You would take Saddam at his word?

What you call boasting and blustering was in fact firing missiles on US warplanes, attacking his own people in no-fly zones, all violations of a ceasefire he agreed to.  

Bush did nothing more to sell hsi reasons for invasions than any other President does to sell any of their junk.  If you're accusing him of being a politician, it's hardly a newsflash on this end.


----------



## Burp (Apr 25, 2009)

If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.
> ...



You are incorrect.  Had Saddam all free and full access, it could not have been used as a basis to justify invasion.  

Saddam possessed WMDs.  Period.  We sold him some of the dual-use percursors.  The CIA taught his chemists to refine Mustard gas, a chemical weapon with no purpose BUT as a WMD.

He used WMDs on the Kurds, and Iran.  That shows possession and intent.  Yet you would assume he does not have any on his say-so?  

Want to buy some West Texas swampland?


----------



## elvis (Apr 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



Why were Saddam's crimes horrible in the 1990's, but not when we were teaching him how to refine mustard gas?


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Fine.  Say Bush is responsible then.



> There is no speculation about Clinton.  I was on mor tan one occasion part of his babysitting force.  There is absolutely nothing partisan about cstating something that is.
> 
> The argument that Bush should have continued to invade has been made and destroyed too many times.  Bush had to agree to NOT depose Saddam in order to get an airfield in SA, and unrestricted use of Arab airspace for Desert Storm.  He made an agreement and kept it.  Simple as that.



So you think SA would have let Clinton use the airbase to invade Iraq?



> You don't know whether or not Saddam claiming all his WMDs were destroyed was deceitful or not.  The records of such events do not exist.  You would take Saddam at his word?



Of course not.  I base it on the fact that both before and after the war, inspectors scoured every inch of Iraq in the biggest easter egg hunt of all time.



> What you call boasting and blustering was in fact firing missiles on US warplanes, attacking his own people in no-fly zones, all violations of a ceasefire he agreed to.



That is the best argument for it.  Though it was Iraq airspace that was being defended.  This did not justify invasion and occupation IMO, and the Bush administration did not base its action principally on this.



> Bush did nothing more to sell hsi reasons for invasions than any other President does to sell any of their junk.  If you're accusing him of being a politician, it's hardly a newsflash on this end.



Don't get your point.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Valerie said:
> ...



The UN inspectors in 2003 stated they were being given full access. 



> Saddam possessed WMDs.  Period.  We sold him some of the dual-use percursors.  The CIA taught his chemists to refine Mustard gas, a chemical weapon with no purpose BUT as a WMD.
> 
> He used WMDs on the Kurds, and Iran.  That shows possession and intent.



And that was all in the 1980s, not 2003.  The relevant question is whether he had them in 2003.



> Yet you would assume he does not have any on his say-so?



No.  Although certainly if he admitted he had them in Mar 2003 that would have been a different story.

I wouldn't assume he had them at all.   But I wouldn't assume he *did* have them after inspectors scoured Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 and found nothing.



> Want to buy some West Texas swampland?



Not interested.  How about some nice property in the Keys?


----------



## Valerie (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.
> ...



Good post, Iriemon.  I don't disagree with much of what you said, but I don't think they had enough information to feel comfortable trusting the reports and most of all trusting Saddam Hussein.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Burp said:


> If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.



In one sense true, he could have called for an immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq.

But Obama of course plays a far different role in the Iraq war.


----------



## Burp (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.
> ...



He is Commander-in-Chief.  It's happening on his watch.


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 25, 2009)

Burp said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



As I said, that is one way to look at it.  "The Buckeroo stops here."
Looking at it this way, Bush is responsible for all deaths prior to Jan 20 2009.  

Gunny as you can see takes a different way of looking at it.  

You can answer the question from different perspectives.


----------



## Burp (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



I agree with Gunny.

You will notice I said, "If so,..."  

For those who feel that he was responsible because he was president, then they have to follow their own that and hold BO responsible also.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> ...



yet you and obama blame bush for numerous things


----------



## Yurt (Apr 25, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Burp said:
> 
> 
> > If so, then BO is responsible for the 84 military members who have since 1/20/09.
> ...



he introduced legislation to have ALL our troops home from in iraq by summer 2008....now he is CIC...nope...so hopefully you will be consistent and of course stop the buck with obama and not pass it on to bush as you so often do


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 26, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> 
> Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush.  Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.
> 
> ...



Interesting...is it Bush's fault; you say no.  "Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred."

BUT it IS Clinton's fault...and that is NOT partisan hatred.

A wonderful thread of useless garbage Gunny... ALL your points are meaningless, UNLESS you can provide the speech Bush made using THOSE reasons for invading Iraq to Congress and the American people...

*Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary*

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go, says ONeill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime, says Suskind. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying Go find me a way to do this," says ONeill. For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.

And that came up at this first meeting, says ONeill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, Plan for post-Saddam Iraq," adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions, says Suskind. On oil in Iraq.

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said X during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing Y, says Suskind. Not just saying Y, but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.
*Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq? - CBS News*


----------



## Iriemon (Apr 26, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Burp said:
> ...



Sure, Obama is responsible for his decisions, just as Bush was responsible for the attack on Iraq.


----------



## IF_Common_29 (May 4, 2009)

You could blame it on Bush, like most of the country is.  And begin to believe president Obama is our new savior to this country. But bottome line is, if we had stopped Iraq when we first got involved in middle eastern affairs, we wouldn't be dealing with this today. So it all depends on your perspective of the matter at hand


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Bush is solely responsible for all the deaths until 2005.  Then the people who voted him in for a second term can share responsibility for all the deaths that followed that election.  And the deaths that happen today, are still on your right wingers hands.


----------



## jillian (May 4, 2009)

Valerie said:


> You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.



I disagree. by the time they went in and invaded a sovereign nation for no reason at all, the inspections were being done with little problem. anyone who read hans blix's reports was aware of that.

is Bush the sole person responsible? of course not. he had a lot of help. and he allowed rummy and cheney to make policy and failed to change course until far too late.

congress did not "vote to go in". If you read the authorization, it was clear that miliary involvement was a LAST resort...and that he had to go back to Congress with status reports and engagein diplomacy (lol... )  They gave that authority assuming, properly, that the people we deal with should deal with a united country and believe that the president had, at his disposal. He wasn't EVER supposed to go in with guns blazing...and he wasn't supposed to cherry pick the intel.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

jillian....please

Mr. Kerry [along with many other dems], as almost everyone now knows, voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq...

About That Iraq Vote - The New York Times

i don't understand how, after all this time, the dems keep harping on the lie that bush did not have approval.  it was a major weakness for kerry and hillary clinton...

repeat a lie enough times i guess....


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> jillian....please
> 
> Mr. Kerry [along with many other dems], as almost everyone now knows, voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq...
> 
> ...



The Joint Resolution, passed in Nov 02, gave the Bush admin authority if diplomatic efforts were unsuccessful 

The post to which Jillian responded stated: "The entire congress voted to go in ..." 

That was an inaccurate decription of what happened, tho I've seen it asserted a number of times.  There was no vote to go in in Mar 2003; that was the Bush Administration's decision.

Jillian's correction was spot on.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian....please
> ...



read her post again, she said bush did not have authorization to go in guns ablazing....such an assertion and the rest of her post indicates she did not believe bush had authority to invade iraq and remove saddam....as i showed you

i never mentioned anything about "all" congress, her so called correction is a wrong.  now that you've read her post again, read my again...


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



I read Jillian's "gun's blazing" phrase as meaning the Bush Administration did not exhaust diplomatic efforts, which under the JA it was required it to do; not that she meant the Bush Administration did not have an authorization to use military force.


----------



## sealybobo (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> jillian....please
> 
> Mr. Kerry [along with many other dems], as almost everyone now knows, voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq...
> 
> ...



If you went back and relived it, you would remember that we were conned into it.  And Bush promised invasion would be the last resort, would exhaust all other option, and would have a coalition of the willing. 

It is sad that we even have to remind you how we were lied into that war.

Forget about what Hillary & Obama knew.  Who knows.  What I do know is that I was lied to, and it was Bush that did the lying.  

Did Pelosi know about torture?  Who gives a fuck.  The GOP tortured.  

Here is another GOP mistake that they refuse to take as their own.  The economy, not all their fault, the wars, not their fault.

But the DOT Com Boom?  All Clinton's fault.


----------



## HUGGY (May 4, 2009)

Gunny said:


> I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> 
> Saddam Hussein did not come to power because of Bush.  Saddam Hussein came into power because he was a bigger thug than the thug that preceeded him.
> 
> ...



A lot of talk about Saddam, Iraq, Iran, Whatever...  Why exactly is/were any of that the responsibility of the United States?

Were any of these situations a threat to us?  I mean any more than the oil cartels raising the price of oil which they do anyway?  And PUUULLLEEEEZZZZZ don't say terrorists.. that whole thing was and is a police/fbi/cia matter.  The war on terror is so bullshit.  Just tell me how us being involved over there has helped the U S.

Bush promised he would capture Ossama dead or alive.  He did not.  He lied and went into Iraq.

Was the last Iraq war on Bush?...Yes.  Lets hear why I'm wrong.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



(yawn)

and thats why congress kept giving him money for iraq...

bush was authorized, exhausted all options, just becuase he didn't do things exactly they way dems wanted doesn't mean he was not authorized...

alas, i'm so tired of that argument, no amount of truth will ever convince the dems otherwise as it destroys your ability to form your unreasonable arguments about bush and iraq...you won't even listen to the NY times tell you that kerry et al AUTHORIZED bush to invade iraq...


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

LMAO...even cindy sheehan admits the dems authorized bush to invade iraq

*In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq *(or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House. The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008. 


http://www.bringtheguardhome.org/ne...ocratic_congress_has_betrayed_american_voters


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Please don't twist my words around.  

I've never claimed he wasn't authorized.  Congress, including half the Dems, gave him authorization.

That is different than saying that Congress "voted to go in".


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

so he was authorized to invade iraq

but he wasn't authorized "to go in"

what kind of logic is that?  

he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't.  he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority.  that is a fact.  your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.


----------



## jillian (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Please don't twist my words around.
> 
> I've never claimed he wasn't authorized.  Congress, including half the Dems, gave him authorization.
> 
> That is different than saying that Congress "voted to go in".



If one looks at the actual language, instead of the partisan blather of the right, it's easy to see that a) all possible diplomatic efforts through the U.N. were supposed to be made. They weren't.

Bush was also required to REPORT TO CONGRESS before any military action. He didn't do that either. 

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf


----------



## jillian (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> so he was authorized to invade iraq
> 
> but he wasn't authorized "to go in"
> 
> ...



what means did he exhaust?

hans blix said the inspections were going fine.

it's YOUR opinion that is irrelevant because it isn't based on fact.

no suprises.


----------



## manu1959 (May 4, 2009)

jillian said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't twist my words around.
> ...



there were 18 un resolutions.....how many should there have been.....

how man un resolution were written before obama decided to send 20,000 troops to afganistan....

did he report to congress before sending those troops....

why are we allowing obama to continue and escalate an "illegal war".....


----------



## jillian (May 4, 2009)

18 resolutions AFTER the language in the authorization?

don't think so.

and if that's what it referred to, then why would continued efforts be a requirment?

answer.... the inspections were being made. iraq was cooperating.

bush didn't abideby the terms of the authorization.

I didn't say the war was illegal. was that the word I used.

How is Obama escalating the war in Iraq? Troops are being shifted to Afghanistan.... WHERE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> > Please don't twist my words around.
> >
> > I've never claimed he wasn't authorized. Congress, including half the Dems, gave him authorization.
> >
> ...



It wouldn't be any kind of logic.  Why do you ask?  



> he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't.  he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority.  that is a fact.  your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.



No more irrelevant than yours.


----------



## Tech_Esq (May 4, 2009)

The ground war in the war against terror had to be fought somewhere. If it were not, too many well-trained terrorists would have been available to launch asymmetrical attacks against US targets in and out of the US.

Iraq was a better place than most to have the ground war in this war. It should be apparent be now why Afghanistan was not the right place to do it.

My response to the rejoinder I am sure to hear that the "war created more terrorists" is that their training is against ground forces operating in the Middle East, not in asymmetric attacks against civilian targets in the US.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > > Please don't twist my words around.
> ...



you do realize that invading is going in....


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Sure.

You do realize that "Congress voting to go in" is different than Congress authorizing the president to go in if diplomacy fails?


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



ok, so you admit invading is going in....congress authorized bush to go in and invade, that is a fact

diplomacy did in fact fail...that is a fact.  you can play armchair warrior all you want, but the CIC determined that diplomacy failed and thus under the authorization granted by congress, invaded iraq.  

you're making no sense and trying to split a very fine hair because you don't want to admit you're wrong.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Do you have a point?

Congress authorized Bush to make the decision.   Congress did not vote on the decision or "vote to to in."

The difference is who made the decision.  Congress gave authority to Bush to make the decision.  Congress did not make the decision of vote to go in or in favor of the war.

Bush made the decision to go in.  



> diplomacy did in fact fail...that is a fact.



That is a matter of dispute. 



> you're making no sense and trying to split a very fine hair because you don't want to admit you're wrong.



No, you continue to mischaracterize my statements to try to make an argument.  You do it all the time.  Stop doing that and we'll waste a lot less time.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

i can't believe you still don't get it....

according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.  

even democrats admit they authorized invasion, obama hammered hillary on it

but do keep up your weird beliefs, even cindy sheehan doesn't agree with you


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> i can't believe you still don't get it....
> 
> according to law, the CIC determined that invasion was necessary, that is a fact.
> 
> ...



I don't get how you can make these semantic arguments mischaracterizing what I write.

I get that Congress authorized Bush to make the decision, that Bush determined that invasion was necessary for whatever reason, that a bunch of Dems voted for the authorization to let Bush make the decision.  I've said that for 4 posts now. 

That is not the same as saying the Dems "voted to go in."  They did not.  

I can't believe you still don't get it.


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > i can't believe you still don't get it....
> ...



what is wrong with you...

you already admitted that invade means to go in, so yes, in they voted to go in...how the hell do you think america wages war?  they authorized bush to go in and he did....

they specifically voted to allow bush to go in, the CIC commands the troops, not the legislature, so by giving bush authorization, they in fact voted to go in

did any republicans vote to go in?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



What is wrong with you?

*Congress never voted to go to war with Iraq or to invade Iraq.* 

If you contend otherwise please show me the bill or resolution.

But don't show me the Joint Resolution on Iraq.  That Nov 2002 vote was not a vote to go in, it was not a vote to invade Iraq, but to give Bush the authority to make the decision do so if diplomacy failed.



> how the hell do you think america wages war?  they authorized bush to go in and he did....
> 
> they specifically voted to allow bush to go in, the CIC commands the troops, not the legislature, so by giving bush authorization, they in fact voted to go in
> 
> did any republicans vote to go in?



America wages war in many ways.  Sometimes Congress votes to declare war.  Sometimes the president just does it if it is less than a 60 day action, sometimes Congress gives specifica authority to use force, sometimes Congress gives the president the authority to decide whether to go to war. 

The latter is what happened in Iraq.


----------



## Care4all (May 4, 2009)

As a Dove, I THINK these basic principles should be followed before going to war:


*Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. 

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. 

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. 

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. 

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. 

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from 
using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. 

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.*

also, this should be taken to heart by our leaders as well imo...

* Proverbs 24:6 
For by wise guidance you will wage war.... 
*


and then the simple term of war preparation:

*Know your enemy* before you wage war with them...  was not followed in my opinion....nothing was thought through or with wise advise it seems...

So, bottom line, and as mentioned, a devout Dove, the deaths from the Iraqi war does rest on President Bush's shoulders, the buck does stop with him as our Leader and Commander in chief....and the Advisors he picked to advise him.

There still may be a legitimate argument that all the deaths that occurred in the Iraq war can be justified because of yah dee dah reasons to some, but ultimately, those deaths did occur because our leader, with poor advice in my opinion, is the one who chose this war...(and asked Congress to support whatever his decision was regarding going to war) thus responsible for the deaths that occurred, whether justified war deaths or not justified war deaths.

PS
I am hopeless on this topic, there is no "changing me" on my opinion on this so those of you that supported the war, should just not bother!  

care


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



dude, it didn't authorize him to go in, but it authorized him to go in if diplomacy failed....that is authorization...wtf is wrong with you?

hillary clinton ADMITS there was authorization, she tried to revoke that authorization you ninny



> Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the congressional debate over war funding



Senator Clinton Proposes Vote to Rescind Bushâs War Authorization - The Tech

the congress gave bush authority to invade and go into iraq.  he did, they authorized the war.  the senators who voted for that authorization admit it, you would think they know more than you, afterall they voted for that authorization.

it is a complete red herring about congress actually declaring war....this entire issue is about congress AUTHORIZING BUSH TO INVADE iraq.  you said they did not vote to go in, but they did.  if X did not happen, then they authorized bush to invade or go in.  

you and jillian are the only people i know arguing this non existent point.  just admit you are wrong and move on.  you making yourself look silly.


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



I'm going to assume here that you are not just writing this just for the sake of making silly semantic argument, but that there really is a lack of communication and understanding.

Let's start with a basic definitional proposition:

Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



it is absolutely the same.  

if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?

or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



OK I see the problem.  You say that authorizing someone to decide to go to war is the same as voting to go to war.  

If the Joint Resolution was a vote to go to war, why didn't we go to war in Nov 2002? 



> if you're my broker and i tell you to make the decision to buy apple stock if it hits $X, but to sell it if it goes below $Y, did i (vote) to buy that stock?
> 
> or are you actually telling me that it was all up to the broker and i never (voted) for him to buy that stock



No.  You voted to buy it *only if* it hit $X.  If it did not hit $X you did *not* vote to buy that stock.  It was not a vote to buy it; _unless_ some condition happened. 

That is the difference.  A "vte to go in" would be an unconditional vote.  It would be like you telling your broker: "Buy apply stock".  There is no question you voted to buy apple stock.

That is not what happened with Congress.  Congress did not vote to "buy Apple stock" but to do so only if some condition occurred. 

But this situation is not analogous because 1) it  doesn't give discretion to the broker to buy the stock, and 2) Congress did not say Bush had to invade, but authorized him to use force.  He could have just bombed Iraq.  He made the decision to invade and occupy. 

Let's make it more analogous:  If I tell the broker to decide what stock to buy for me and to buy it only if he thinks its a good deal, did I (vote) to buy Apple stock?


----------



## del (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



no, you "voted" to leave it to the broker's discretion as to whether or not to buy the stock. good analogy. 


now, if he buys the stock in good faith and it tanks, are you responsible? 

i would say yes.


----------



## Care4all (May 4, 2009)

it's still not quite precise enough of an analogy Del!  

first, the broker came to you and begged you to give him permission to buy in to a stock for you....

you in turn said no, ONLY IF THE STOCK hits X amount and under X conditions, will you give him permission to buy in to that stock.

your broker said fine, and signed the agreement with you to ONLY buy the stock with your money under those key conditions...

your broker, proceeded to buy the stock with your money even though, the stock never met the measures of your signed agreement, or never hit X amount or the X conditions.

Who should be held accountable for the purchase of that stock?


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

del said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Ha ha, clever, you got me with my own hypo.  Well that is a good point too.  And in one sense I agree, yes you are responsible because you authorized the broker to make the decision for you, even though you didn't make the decision to buy the stock.  And in that way yes Congress is responsible for giving the authority to the president.

I could expand the hypo and introduce facts that make it murkier -- eg the broker mislead you about what kind of stocks he would buy etc.   But I think we understand the point.


----------



## del (May 4, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



i wasn't trying to play gotcha, just working with your analogy which as i said was a good one. congress can't authorize a president to use his discretion and then cry foul when he does, IMO. if they questioned his discretion and/or intent, then they should have voted to withhold authorization.


i've been opposed to the iraqi war since before its inception, but i don't think that people that supported it are evil, just wrong.


----------



## del (May 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> it's still not quite precise enough of an analogy Del!
> 
> first, the broker came to you and begged you to give him permission to buy in to a stock for you....
> 
> ...



i see your point cares, but i think ultimately it is my responsibility for signing the agreement. that doesn't mean that the broker is blameless, but i have to take responsibility for misjudging the broker's integrity, imo.


----------



## Care4all (May 4, 2009)

del said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > it's still not quite precise enough of an analogy Del!
> ...



absolutely!!!   so, so true, as well!!!


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

finally!  finally someone made through to iriemon...

good lord


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> finally!  finally someone made through to iriemon...
> 
> good lord



Sorry to burst your bubble, but the point you were arguing is quite different than the point Del made.  

To put it into the stock broker analogy, if I give the broker the authority to buy stock if he thinks it is best for me, and he decides buys XYZ stock and it takes a loss, I'm responsible for the loss because I gave the broker the discretion to choose whther to buy stock and what stock to buy.  Del pointed out that I'm responsible for the loss because I gave the authority to make that decision to the broker. 

The point you are trying to say is that I decided to buy XYZ stock because I gave the broker the discretion.  That does not follow.  Just because I gave the broker discretion to buy stock does not mean I made the decision to buy stock or to buy XYZ stock.  That was the broker's decision.

In the same way, Congress bears responsibility for delegating authority to make the decision to 1) use force and 2) what force to use to the Bush administration (conditioned upon diplomacy failing).  However, that is not the same as saying that Congress made the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.  Congress did not vote to go in.   Never happened.  That was Bush's decision.


----------



## Toro (May 4, 2009)

Hell no!

Cheney is too...


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...


----------



## Iriemon (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...



Well, what can I say.  I personally think there is a significant difference between you doing deciding to do something yourself and you authorizing someone else to do decide whether to do it.  But this horse has been beat enough


----------



## del (May 4, 2009)

Yurt said:


> you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...



i must be irrational then, because i see a significant difference.
ah, reasonable people can disagree...


----------



## Yurt (May 4, 2009)

del said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...
> ...



the difference was the discretion was left up to the broker on whether to purchase versus the broker purchasing if the stock hit X dollars.  i understand that, however, iriemon's initial question was related to a condition happening and upon that condition happening then bush was authorized to go into iraq.  

he then changed his stance to it was left up to bush's sole discretion.  while that is true in a sense as bush is CIC, what he first said is:



> Do you agree that voting to authorize someone to make the decision to go to war if certain conditions occur, is not the same as voting to go to war?



that is where my analogy fits into HIS reasoning in this issue that i meant was similar, not the same as what he later said and you rightfully called him on, but the overall arguments and analogies were germane to his claims.  

his above comment fits mine to a tee...i authorize my broker to purchase stock A if certain conditions occur....how is that not authorizing the broker to use what ever legal means necessary to purchase that stock?  

that is what congress authorized bush to do, use whatever means necessary to make sure iraq complies etc....if iraq does not comply.

lastly, why did hillary clinton call for "revoking" the authorization if the senators never gave him authorization to go into iraq?  
IMO


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Fine, no.  I'm not going to say Bush is responsible anymore than I am going to blame any other President of the US for deploying forces of war.

Whether or not SA wuold have allowed Clinton to launch an invasion from the airfiled is irrelevant.  He didn't try.  My point is, he didn't really try to do anything.  He maintained the status quo at our expense.

When you lose a war, you are at the victor's mercy.  Saddam relinquished his right to defend Iraqi airspace when he signed the ceasefire agreement.  

Of course you don't get my point.  You wouldn't.  It's called partisan blindness.  You accuse Bush of misleading us when all he did ACTUALLY was present his agenda in a light most favorable to achieving the reuslts he desired.  He's no different than any other politician and pales in comparison to some that YOU agree with.  Obama being a perfect example.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



I lived in the Keys.  Loved it.  Probably no longer the place I remember though.

You're making a circular argument where WMD's are concerned.  I will repeat .. Saddam possessed WMDs.  He used WMDs.  He continued to act as if he had WMDs by playing a shell game with inspectors.  Saddam did not account for the WMDs he is on record as having.

If that would lead you to *not* assume he had them and would use them, I can only hope you are never placed in a position of leadership in the US military.  Yours is a completely illogical conclusion.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> ...



Learn to read.  I didn't say it was Clinton's fault.  I addressed the double standard.  If you want to start holding Presidents accountable for your partisan extremism, there are two sides to every coin.  

I've already come to the conclusion your arguments aren't worth addressing.  It's a waste of time and effort.  Your blind partisanship makes your arguments.  Not anything real.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



Which is not what the thread title addresses.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN inspectors and taunting the US, just daring us to do something about it.  The entire congress voted to go in and find those WMDs after 9/11.
> ...



We didn't invade a sovereign nation for no reason at all.  That's a lie.  Can't be anything else since you have been educated otherwise more than a few times and STILL cling to that partisan lie.

Hans Blix is an anti-US liar.  If he said the sky was blue I'd look outside first before believing him.  Funny how he ignored Saddam cherrypicking where he was allowed to look and even changed his story later and claim they were given full access.

A perfect example of the uselessness of the UN.  They don't have the balls to enforce their own resolutions.  They aren't worth the paper they're written on.  

Congress gave away its authority to Bush, both Republicans AND Democrats.  Period.  It's rather obvious they gave away that authority with the understanding Bush was going to use force, or else they were too dumb to be in Congress.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > jillian....please
> ...



You are incorrect.  Congress gave away its oversight and authority.  Period.  There was and is no excuse for that.   Trying to play with dates is just a game of semantics and a smokescreen.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...



"All diplomatic efforts" were exhausted LONG before Bush became President of the US.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > I say no.  Further, I consider any assertion that he to be extremist, partisan hatred.
> ...



Like running in circles do you?  I explained why in the first post in this thread.  Hell-O?


----------



## Bfgrn (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Gee Gunny, is Paul O'Neill, Bush's first Treasury Secretary who said invading Iraq was discussed in the first week of the administration, 8 months before 911 also a blind partisan?

The PROBLEM which you are oblivious to Gunny...Bush LIED to START a war...

SO, he OWNS it...


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't twist my words around.
> ...



The only partisan blather here is from you and your ilk.  Y'all spend more time trying to mindfuck something simple just to win a patently dishonest argument on your part than it takes to read _War and Peace_.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > so he was authorized to invade iraq
> ...



Lame.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> 18 resolutions AFTER the language in the authorization?
> 
> don't think so.
> 
> ...



Another lie.  Iraq was not cooperating and you KNOW it.  NOBODY could be THAT dumb.

Your opinion that the troops should have been in Afghanistan in the first place does not answer the question.  The troops are supposed to be coming home, not redeployed to a different war just because that war is okay with you.  Y'all are such hypocrites.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> As a Dove, I THINK these basic principles should be followed before going to war:
> 
> 
> *Principles of the Just War
> ...



A "just war" is a matter of perspective.  Depends on whose side you're on.  Too many people in this country take the side of a piece of human garbage for no reason more than support their partisan political hatreds.  The facts be damned.


----------



## Gunny (May 6, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Non sequitur.  Figures you'd want the opinion of beancounter about a war.  Related to LBJ are you?


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



The Bush administration made the decision to attack, invade and occupy Iraq.  As you say, call a spade a spade. 



> When you lose a war, you are at the victor's mercy.  Saddam relinquished his right to defend Iraqi airspace when he signed the ceasefire agreement.



Regardless of you opinion, this was not a key point the Bush administration justified attacking on. 



> Of course you don't get my point.  You wouldn't.  It's called partisan blindness.  You accuse Bush of misleading us when all he did ACTUALLY was present his agenda in a light most favorable to achieving the reuslts he desired.  He's no different than any other politician and pales in comparison to some that YOU agree with.  Obama being a perfect example.



Partisan blindness works both ways, doesn't it?  

It is a fact that in Mar 2003 large percentages of Americans believed that Iraq was working with AQ, that Iraq had WMDs and that Iraq was involved in 9-11.  These beliefs were false.  In other words, the public in fact had been mislead.

I agree it wasn't just the Bush administration doing it, the neocons were feeding regular misinformation into the press.  But the bush administration lead the rally, because, as you acknowledge, the neocons had an agenda to take out Hussein, well before 9-11.


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Without a time frame your statement is meaningless.  The fact he had WMDs (courtesy the Reagan administration) in the 1980s is no justification for war in 2003.



> If that would lead you to *not* assume he had them and would use them, I can only hope you are never placed in a position of leadership in the US military.  Yours is a completely illogical conclusion.



If he had had them he had had them for 20 years and there is no evidence he gave them to terrorists or used them against us.  To say that suddenly in 2003 he suddenly became an "urgent threat" justifying a rush to war is a completely illogical conclusion.  Especially when after three months of free access and hundreds of blind inspections, the inspection teams found no trace of the WMDs where our sources said they were.

If that would lead you to conclude Iraq was an urgent threat requiring a rush to war in these circumstances, I can only hope you are never place in a posistion of leadership in the US military ... wait, we did have someone like that in a posistion of leadership in the US military.

PS:  The Keys are becoming more commercialized but they are still great, still go down there by car or boat when I can.


----------



## editec (May 6, 2009)

*



Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq?

Click to expand...

 
Not anymore, no.*


----------



## Bfgrn (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



Non sequitur Gunny? Paul O'Neill's opinion ABOUT war is non sequitur! But his FIRST PERSON accounts of WHAT was discussed IS relevant. As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. 

AND...what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go, says ONeill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



You would be right, if you were arguing against my point.  You are not.  My point is that Congress never voted to go to war, much less invade and occupy.  That was solely the decision of the Bush administration.  The buck stops there.

Whether Congress should have given Bush that authority is another matter.  In hindsight, after seeing the Bush administration misused that authority to start a strategically stupid war, we can say it was a big error by the Republican controlled Congress and the Dems that voted with them.

In Oct/Nov 2002, when the Presidents party brought the Joint Resolution up for a vote, however, the President was trying to coerce Iraq into letting inspectors back in with free access.  Giving him authority to use force gave him leverage for that coercion.  If the Congress had voted no to that authority, Hussein would have laughed in his face.


----------



## Care4all (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > As a Dove, I THINK these basic principles should be followed before going to war:
> ...



In the 1991 Gulf war, US Troops destroyed 93% of saddam's weapons and the next couple of years through inspections, we destroyed a remaining 4%, so we accounted destroying 97% of ALL of saddam's weapon and ammunition stock pile that he had prior to Gulf War 1....I had read this information BEFORE we invaded Iraq in 2003, and this is one main reason I was against going to war with saddam again...because I knew he was NOT a big threat to us, or the rest of the world with 97% of his stockpile of chemical and other weapons gone, destroyed already.

I have been searching for the article i read from the intelligence community, back in 2002 for years now, but to no avail...i figured it was taken off the internet.  

Today, I found another intelligence community article that supports what I had read in this other article....

Outline for final unclassified report on intelligence related to Gulf War illnesses

we destroyed most all of his stockpile of weapons back in 1991....granted, Saddam was getting money through the Oil For Food program and could have started to persue more chemical weapons with this money, IF WE DID NOT watch him closely...

Care


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Weren't you just talking about blind partisanship?  In March 2003 the UN inspectors were continuing their mission in Iraq.  Hussein had let them in and given them free access to the country.  The had done hundreds of blind inspections where the WMDs were supposed to  be and found nothing.  

Tough diplomacy was working fine.  There was no reason to go to war in Mar 2003.

Unless, as you acknowledge, the Bush administration had a previous agenda, which the neocons in his administration did, and were afraid that further diplomacy and inspections would deprive them of their excuse to attack Iraq.


----------



## Care4all (May 6, 2009)

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed



> Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
> Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
> 
> 2/27/03
> ...



here is the guy's testimony....

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf

yet we had the administration touting that this man said saddam DID HAVE wmd's...simply lies.



> But according to Kamel's transcript, Iraq destroyed all of these weapons in 1991.
> 
> According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist-- suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the credibility of Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was widely hailed at the time for its persuasiveness. To clear up the issue, journalists might ask the CIA to release the transcripts of its own conversations with Kamel.



please go to the first link for the full story....

I don't think people have taken their positions for or against the Iraq invasion based on purely partisan reasons, I think people took their positions from what they read and researched....and both sides are not reading the same info or are reading contradicting information,.....what a wonderful, useless media, we have.....  

Care


----------



## editec (May 6, 2009)

Iriemon said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Iriemon said:
> ...


 
Congress completely failed to do their job, in my opinion.

They bascially gave Bush carte blache to do whatever he wanted, yet didn't really give him a war declaration.

Very disappointing.


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

editec said:


> Iriemon said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I think the way it was presented to Congress almost compelled a favorable vote for the reasons stated in the last paragraph of my post.  It was brought to Congress in a manner such that if it was voted down it would have deprived the President of an effective means of tough diplomacy, which was necessary against Hussein.

That bill should never have been brought up for a vote.


----------



## manu1959 (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> 18 resolutions AFTER the language in the authorization?
> 
> don't think so.
> 
> ...



so you wanted 18 more un resolutions and 8 more years of negotiation after congress said ok.....

iraq was cooperating ... they had records of everything except what happend to all their "wmds"....

the troops were in afganistan that country was just fine now it is an issue again....what exactly did afganistan have to do with 9/11.....i don't recal the taliban claiming credit for the attack.....


----------



## jillian (May 6, 2009)

editec said:


> Congress completely failed to do their job, in my opinion.
> 
> They bascially gave Bush carte blache to do whatever he wanted, yet didn't really give him a war declaration.
> 
> Very disappointing.



the dems failed in their responsibility to oversee. no argument.

but I'm afraid that under the circumstances, they did need to give him the apparent authority to wage war in order to coerce the inspections as Iriemon stated. 

But I don't think anyone expected the level of bad faith that was shown by the admin in effectuating the grant of authority.


----------



## manu1959 (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Congress completely failed to do their job, in my opinion.
> ...



does anyone know why in the 6 years since the admin " abused the approval to go to war" nobody brought for a vote to withdraw the troops especially in the last two years.........they just kept voting to send money and guns....


----------



## jillian (May 6, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> does anyone know why in the 6 years since the admin " abused the approval to go to war" nobody brought for a vote to withdraw the troops especially in the last two years.........they just kept voting to send money and guns....



because we broke it we bought it. and most of us aren't so silly as to think you just destabilize the region further by pulling out all troops before it was RE-stabilized.

shifting to afghanistan is a good start though.

or should we have allowed iran to take over Iraq?


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > 18 resolutions AFTER the language in the authorization?
> ...



That is the gist of the WMD issue.  Iraq denied it had WMDs, said it destroyed it all, after hundreds of blind inspections the UN inspectors found nothing.  But Iraq had not produced satisfactory documentation of the destruction of the WMDs according to the UN inspectors.  

The Bush administration essentially took us to war based on bad record keeping.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2009)

*Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq? 
*

Yes


----------



## sitarro (May 6, 2009)

jillian said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > so he was authorized to invade iraq
> ...



Hans Blix?????? You would believe that hack who, like the asshole in charge of the UN, was probably being paid by Saddam along with Germany, Russia and France.


----------



## sealybobo (May 6, 2009)

How do you ask someone to be the last American soldier to die in Iraq for a mistake?" Indeed, today's Washington Post features an article by Christian Davenport and Joshua Partlow about the emerging split among military families over that very question. 

All of this has caused me to wonder: Well, who WAS the last soldier to die for the Vietnam mistake? 

To my surprise, with a little research, I discovered that there is a consensus on who that individual was. We'll get to his name in a moment, but what's most relevant is that he died almost five years after that "mistake" was widely acknowledged. How many will die from now until the last American perishes in Iraq? Gallup and other polls show that a clear majority of American have already labeled the Iraq invasion a "mistake."

We are at a haunting juncture in the Iraq war. Forgive me for another "back in the day" reference, but I recall very well that the public only turned strongly against the Vietnam conflict with the mass realization that young American lives were not only being lost but truly wasted. Now, a woman named Beverly Fabri says in today's Washington Post, almost three years after her 19-year-old son, Army Pvt. Bryan Nicholas Spry, was killed, "I'm beginning to feel like he just died in vain, I really am." That's because she believes, "We are not going to win this war. And we shouldn't have gotten involved with it in the first place."

The Last Soldier To Die for A Mistake | Middle East > Gulf States from AllBusiness.com


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

sitarro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



Yeah, the same hack that gave the Bush administration excuse to attack by writing that Iraq had not adquately documented how it destroyed the WMD it had.

The same hack who said their was no evidence of WMD in Iraq, and was right.


----------



## Yurt (May 6, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Congress gave away its authority to Bush, both Republicans AND Democrats.  Period.  It's rather obvious they gave away that authority with the understanding Bush was going to use force, or else they were too dumb to be in Congress.



exactly.  

all you have to do is also go back and see the comments the democrats and republicans made regarding saddam.  it is clear that knew full well an invasion was coming.  also, their silence until later that year when elections were coming is very telling.


----------



## sealybobo (May 6, 2009)

Yurt said:


> you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...



Do you really think Bush exhausted all options before invading Iraq?  Really?  Even now that we know all the facts?  

He rushed in.  He went thru the formalities maybe, but he did not exhaust all options.  Why do you think so  many countries were against it?

Just like the $750 billion bailout, bush said we had no time to think about it.  Saddam had the WMD's and might use them or hide them, so we have to go in asap.

In the fall of 2002, like most of my fellow Senators, I voted in favor of the resolution giving George Bush the authority to invade Iraq. I did so in the belief that before invading Iraq, George Bush would establish that Iraq was a clear and present danger to America, that he would put together a true multinational coalition, and that, finally, he would exhaust all peaceful options. 

I now realize that I was wrong. And, unlike George Bush, who can not think of any mistakes he has made since 911, much less apologize for them, I apologize to you, the American people for my error. 

At the time that I voted for the resolution, I did not know that George Bush had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since even before he was inagurated President; that the Bush administration was lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Bushs own intelligence officers were doubtful about the case for WMDs; that George Bushs war plans did not include enough troops, enough body armor or enough tanks for our soldiers; that our brave men and women would have to write home to beg their families to send water and batteries, because our war planners had not taken the trouble to send them enough basic necessities; that George Bush and his advisors had no plans for what to do after the war was won because they believed that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our troops, when, instead, they threw rocket propelled grenades; I did not know that George Bush would sit back and let an Iraqi minority riot and loot, and thereby undermine the U.S. from the very first day of victory, or that Bushs defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld believed at the time, that Iraqis, like teenagers, were just harmlessly sowing their wild oats; I did not know that in order to invade Iraq George Bush would secretly drain crucial resources away from our fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and not tell the Congress or American People about it; that George Bush had no exit strategy, no strategy for a real victory; far from it, that George Bush would say bring em on, dangerously taunting the Iraqi insurgents to attack our troops, even though it would be they and not him, who would have to pay the terrible price; I did not know, that George Bush had no ability to hold prisoners in accordance with internationally acceptable standards, so that now, Americas claims to the moral high ground in Iraq are increasingly seen as hollow and hypocritical; I did not know the depths of the venality, incompetence and arrogance of this Administration, so I did not realize that this administration was about to lead our country into the biggest foreign policy blunder of a generation, if not a lifetime. 

Perhaps I should have known. Certainly, there were plenty of critics, writing on the internet, marching in the streets, appearing on radio and TV, who predicted with uncanny accuracy, many of things that have now come to pass. Perhaps I was blinded, by my trust in our President, our Commander-in Chief, when he told us that Iraq represented an imminent threat. I can see now, sadly, that, along with the American People, I was clearly wrong to place my trust in George Bush. 

So what are we to do now? Many people, myself included, have said that we have to stay the course until the job is done. But, I am afraid, that it is now too late for that. The blunders of George Bush have been so many, so profound, and so deadly, that it will be impossible for the U.S. or any foreign group to get the job done in the current environment. To stubbornly keep repeating that mantra, will only serve to put more brave young Americans into early graves and wheel chairs, without bringing peace or security to Iraq  or to the American people. We have to face the facts: George Bush has bungled this war so absolutely, that to stay is only to generate more hatred, more disgust and more revenge against Americans and their allies. To continue to occupy and fight in Iraq will only make us less secure, not more. To lose more young Americans for less security: that is not only folly; it is a crime. 

There are those who say that to leave now would only serve to undermine the credibility of the United States in its war on terror. But, I respectfully submit, they are wrong. By going into Iraq, for no good reason and without a workable plan, George Bush guaranteed that our credibility would be severely damaged. To stay longer, and expend more young lives and money, and then still to lose, would be to undermine our credibility even more, and, worse yet, to reduce our capacity and willingness to fight the war on terror in the future. 

I was wrong, but I will not continue to be. It is time for the United States to change course in Iraq. We must withdraw our troops as soon as possible. The Iraqi people will find their own way to security and peace. They can request help from us and the international community if they want it, and we will be there to help provide it. But we will no longer be an occupying force, as we would continue to be in reality, even after June 30, if George Bush has his way. Neither I, nor the American people, will continue to be held hostage to George Bushs War of Folly. 

There will be debate and recrimination. We can have it now, or we can have it later. People will ask: Who lost Iraq? The answer is that George Bush lost Iraq from the very beginning. It was the wrong war, by the wrong people with the wrong plan. It had nothing to do with the security of the United States and everything to do with the ego, the re-election campaign and the fantasies of George Bush and his administration. Enough is enough. Bring the troops home. 

Thank you and God Bless America.


----------



## Yurt (May 6, 2009)

funny how the libs ignore their own liberal leaders comments



> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


funny how libs ignore their own leaders saying there was exhaustion and saddam is not and will not comply



> He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002





> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And *now he is miscalculating America's response *to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



kerry flat out states that saddam is miscalculating that america will not go to war and remove him.  the dems knew full well that bush (america as kerry said) was going to invade, they even stated that saddam thinking bush/america would not invade...is a "miscalculation"


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Yurt said:


> funny how the libs ignore their own liberal leaders comments
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As is often the case when someone cites a single phrase or sentence, the word can be looked at out of context:

Here are some other things Kerry said in the Oct 9 2002 speech about the Joint Resolution:

_
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And *the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein*. 

*As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." *It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, *if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. *

In giving the President this authority, I* expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies *at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. 

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. *I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.* _

Kerry is obviously saying something very different than saying he knew that Bush was going to invade.  

Other Dem leaders expressed similar reservations and 21 of 49 voted against it. 

_Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.): "expressed severe reservations, nonetheless voted for the resolution."[

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Senate Majority Leader: "raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security"[1] but backed Bush and said "it is important for the country 'to speak with one voice at this critical moment' [and that] Iraq's weapons programs 'may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.' However, he urged Bush to move 'in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.'" He also "expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution ...."

Sen. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), Minority Leader: "said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.): See "Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution," Antiwar.com, October 11, 2002. 

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.): said "The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."_

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Au...ilitary_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002


----------



## Yurt (May 6, 2009)

if one actually takes the time to see the dates, then one can see kerry and the admin saying 4 months previous to my quote that at THAT TIME war was a last resort.  as time went on, it became clear that was was the ONLY option as saddam was ignoring the will of america and miscalculating her promise to use force.  

so again, we have liberals taking quotes, not only out of context, but out of place and time.


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Yurt said:


> if one actually takes the time to see the dates, then one can see kerry and the admin saying 4 months previous to my quote that at THAT TIME war was a last resort.  as time went on, it became clear that was was the ONLY option as saddam was ignoring the will of america and miscalculating her promise to use force.
> 
> so again, we have liberals taking quotes, not only out of context, but out of place and time.



The quotes I cited where from Kerry's Oct 9, 2002 speech, which was the exact same date and speech as the first quotation Yurt cited.

But for the record, here are, to put in context, other excerpts of Kerry's Jan. 23, 2003 speech, showing that he was not calling for Bush to rush to war, quite the contrary:

_Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. 

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, *the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available*, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. 

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they *must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. *They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world. 

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, *show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition.* *Mr. President, do not rush to war.* _


----------



## Yurt (May 6, 2009)

on Aug. 9, 2004,[Kerry] when asked if *he would still have gone to war *knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: &#8220;Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.&#8221; Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: &#8220;[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

...

Stephanopoulos' question, edited out of the video, was, "On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen. Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?" Kerry takes the question in two parts: No to the timing ("I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity"), yes to the "decision to disarm." But in his final sentence, *Kerry conveys that his agreement with Bush on the decision is more important than their disagreement on the timing: "When the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam]."*



Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops - CBS News

additionally, it has already been made clear and you admitted that congress gave the decision to wage war to bush, so you can't very well now say, no they didn't....because as you keep getting shown the senators said yes they did.


----------



## Iriemon (May 6, 2009)

Yurt said:


> on Aug. 9, 2004,[Kerry] when asked if *he would still have gone to war *knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have. Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: [Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Sure they knew they were giving Bush the authority.  What I take issue with is the claim "dems knew full well that bush (america as kerry said) was going to invade".  When they gave the authorization in Oct 2002, they did not know that.


----------



## Yurt (May 6, 2009)

then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress.  you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result.  even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....

the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war.  however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.

nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.


----------



## sealybobo (May 14, 2009)

Yurt said:


> then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress.  you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result.  even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....
> 
> the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war.  however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.
> 
> nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.



Who convinced Hillary that we need to go to war with Iraq?  The Bush administration.

Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning, told an interviewer that in an early July 2002 chat with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, he questioned putting Iraq at the center of the U.S. war against terrorism. He said Rice advised him "essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath." 

British Documents Portray Determined US March to War

Who gave Congress false information on Iraq?  Bush Admin.

Who tortured false connections between Saddam and Al Queda out of detainees?


----------



## sealybobo (May 14, 2009)

Yurt said:


> then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress.  you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result.  even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....
> 
> the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war.  however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.
> 
> nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.



The next day (10/08/02) Bushs claims were answered in an article that featured the views of "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government [who] privately have deep misgivings about the administrations double-time march toward war." Their number (at least a dozen) made up for their anonymity. The article spoke of "intelligence agents...under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White Houses argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." The administration was charged with "squelching dissenting views." The analysts tore into Rumsfelds claims of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link. They criticized Bushs comments on Saddams quest for a softball size piece of highly enriched uranium saying "Saddam has sought such highly enriched uranium for many years without success, and there is no evidence that he has it now." Furthermore, how would he deliver a weapon? And if a weapon were detonated, that would "...automatically trigger a response that would include Iraq, Iran, North Korea..." They criticized Bushs mention of aluminum tubes and a number of other administration statements. On 10/09/02 yet another article drawn from similar sources attacked Bushs presentation.

Unfazed, Bush on 11/04/02 in Dallas said: "At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon."

How Did Saddam Hussein Become a Grave Threat? by Michael S. Rozeff

How about being stupid enough to still be defending Bush and the GOP?  Or stupid enough to be focused on the Dems who went along so to distract from the fact that the GOP are the actual liars.  

So does any of this make you want to vote for the GOP in 2010?  Just curious.


----------

