Conservatives cheering for Russia's naked aggresion

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Don't worry about it. Sallow was one of the more vocal traitorous dogs on this forum during the Bush years, often siding with unpatriotic individuals who were focused on aiding America's enemies by citing and spreading seditious propaganda. Hell, he probably still does, but only when a Republican is speaking. Otherwise, all the things he rails against when an R is in office, are perfectly acceptable to him now.

The US has no business interfering with an internal matter with Russia. Not that I don't think that our military could not defeat the Russians, but that war would be so costly that in truth, no one could be declared a victor. There would just be dead bodies, everywhere.

The new Ukrainian regime is as corrupt as the previous, if not more so. The US has been trying to engineer a secession from the Russians for years now and would amount to Russia trying to get Florida to join them over the USA.

The problem we have right now, is that the Russian President is a man, much like most of OUR Presidents used to be. But the current occupant is an effete snob who can't even be secure in his own beliefs and sexuality. Is it any wonder that a true leader puts him in a bad light. But we 'll soon be rid of this woman, and will have a new President soon. Maybe one that is twice the man Obama is....Like Hillary.

You're thinking about the Hannity forum. Remember Okiefest..you know..when all you big bad conservatives were going to show up and kick our liberal butts in the boxing ring?

Only people that showed up was Stephen and Terry..and of course..your dog.

But that's another story.

And not once did I side with a foreign leader against Bush.

I was against the invasion of Iraq..and many of Bush's policies..and said so.

Even though you and your cronies bought into the line "You are either with us or with the Terrorists".

You guys were pro-torture, pro-Patriot Act, pro unlimited detention with no trial..heck you were in with that whole Bush doctrine thing, hook line and sinker.

That was REALLY un-constitutional by the way.

I never heard anything about a boxing match. I question that happned, but i do remember Okiefest....

Not once? I remember those days as well, when you all were siding with the phrench against Bush. There were others as well, though they've been deposed now...Might have been that Eye-tallian fuck..can't recall his name...

Funny how your opposing Iraq is not treason, but our opposing Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine is treasonous.

BTW....the torture wasn't exactly hair splitting stuff and it was done on the enemy, you know, those guys willing to kill us all? The Patriot Act? The one that the Democrats voted for, and have been modifying to use against political groups in the USA? And I remember right, both Liability and Myself were pretty much skeptical of the Patriot Act. We both said it was legal, but walked the razors edge and worried about it in the hands of a Democrat....turns out we were yet again, correct to fear that. But then, the made up and phoney Bush Doctrine thing was something that was tossed around a lot, but never proven.

So much for that....

The point is, for every vile and vitriolic thing you and the left said about Bush, you have zero room to complain when it is hurled (rightly) at Obama. Kettle, met pot.

Oh, Sallow will bring up the Patriot Act and calling conservatives "pro-torture" on measures used against "Muslim extremists" to extract information used to keep the United States safe from further terrorist attacks ( as I have been unable to find any cases where water boarding was used on American citizens ). Yet Obama has decided to up the ante by turning to drones, as a measure to kill off our threats overseas. Drones that have, by the way, met no resistance from this administration as an added tool to be used against our own citizens. Then Sallow wants to lecture conservatives about Constitutionality?

 

[Sallow]

What you really mean is you don't give a fuk because it was Bush. Did you see one US interest in the Balkins when we bombed those people for 72 days killing Chinese nationals in the process? What were the US interests in Lybia and Syria? Sure those three are good examples of liberal wars, no risks to our side just slaughter the other into submission. And what did we get for it Lybia???? Benghazi. I see your point with the Sudan why do you think a black president apparently doesn't give a crap? At least Bush helped and was loved by the African people. I am sure Obama is too but only for one reason.

What is really a pile of dung is that the left is claiming the right is rooting Putin on when they are not but the left had/has no problem using the Iraq war, which they voted for, as political fodder. Our men didn't die for nothing no matter how low the liberals want to go.

As for Iraq, let us start by saying I would not have voted for war in Iraq if I were to have a chance but let us see what those who did had to say, I know this is a rehash but apparently liberals have ADD.

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"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. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"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. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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. *


Now go here and see what else you have forgotten:

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.

That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.

They did not vote to use force in Iraq.

wrong, congress authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco. Both parties are responsible

Actually..that's not even the case.

They gave the President the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Bush could have given the UN time to finish their work.

He did not.

Additionally, as it's been pointed out so many times before, the President controls the Intel.

And he used a major terrorist attack to float the agenda of the PNAC.

 

[Synthaholic]

probably not, but we will never know because you fools elected the kenyan messiah twice.

Are you holding that having Kenyan ancestry is a bad thing?

And are you holding "messiah" (A Hebrew Word) to be a bad thing?

And why do you seem to gloss over the fact that Obama is Irish, and the grandson of a WWII vet?

He was also born in Hawaii, is that a bad thing also?

Who cares about any of that ?

I've always said...I'd love to have a trangendered femal black muslim president if she pushed conservative views and repealed Obamacrapcare.

Obama sucks as a leader and as a president....and yes that is a bad thing.

Keep telling yourself that!

 

[candycorn]

The ignorance displayed in this thread is amazing.

We're used to it from you.

First, the Ukraine is a country that is made up of two factions. The east is predominately Russians and the west is mostly europeans. The best solution would be to divide it in half and let the east return to russia and the west join the EU.

The best solution is self-determination and not letting the US or Russia slice up territory like it owns it.

Second, Putin has made Obama look like an incompetent boob in every international event since 2008.

Nah, that was you looking in the mirror.

Third, The US was not trying to annex Iraq, so those comparisons to whats happening in Ukraine are foolish.

Gunfire is gunfire despite the political consequences. Saying "we come in peace" means little while someone thinks you're shooting at them.

Fourth, no one on the right is cheering for Putin, we are merely pointing out the difference between a man who is a leader and a boy who is not.

Where is your denouncement? Nowhere to be found. Like your manhood.

Fifth, the US invasion of Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money-------both parties authorized and funded it-----they are all responsible.

Parties don't authorize anything of the sort you fucking idiot. Bush lied, Americans died.

 

[Redfish]

None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.

That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.

They did not vote to use force in Iraq.

wrong, congress authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco. Both parties are responsible

Actually..that's not even the case.

They gave the President the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Bush could have given the UN time to finish their work.

He did not.

Additionally, as it's been pointed out so many times before, the President controls the Intel.

And he used a major terrorist attack to float the agenda of the PNAC.

Bush could not, and did not, go into Iraq on his own, he did not have that authority or the funding to make it happen.

Both parties in congress voted to authorize and fund that stupid action that cost many american lives and billions of dollars for nothing, Afghanistan will show the same result. We should have learned when we lost 58,000 americans and billions in viet nam for NOTHING, but we didn't learn a thing from it. pathetic.

 

[Synthaholic]

What you really mean is you don't give a fuk because it was Bush. Did you see one US interest in the Balkins when we bombed those people for 72 days killing Chinese nationals in the process? What were the US interests in Lybia and Syria? Sure those three are good examples of liberal wars, no risks to our side just slaughter the other into submission. And what did we get for it Lybia???? Benghazi. I see your point with the Sudan why do you think a black president apparently doesn't give a crap? At least Bush helped and was loved by the African people. I am sure Obama is too but only for one reason.

What is really a pile of dung is that the left is claiming the right is rooting Putin on when they are not but the left had/has no problem using the Iraq war, which they voted for, as political fodder. Our men didn't die for nothing no matter how low the liberals want to go.

As for Iraq, let us start by saying I would not have voted for war in Iraq if I were to have a chance but let us see what those who did had to say, I know this is a rehash but apparently liberals have ADD.

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"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. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"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. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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. *


Now go here and see what else you have forgotten:

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.

That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.

They did not vote to use force in Iraq.

wrong, congress authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco. Both parties are responsible

False.

 

[Redfish]

Are you holding that having Kenyan ancestry is a bad thing?

And are you holding "messiah" (A Hebrew Word) to be a bad thing?

And why do you seem to gloss over the fact that Obama is Irish, and the grandson of a WWII vet?

He was also born in Hawaii, is that a bad thing also?

Who cares about any of that ?

I've always said...I'd love to have a trangendered femal black muslim president if she pushed conservative views and repealed Obamacrapcare.

Obama sucks as a leader and as a president....and yes that is a bad thing.

Keep telling yourself that!

the entire world is saying that as they laugh at our stupid ineffective foreign policy implemented by incompetents like obama and kerry.

 

[Redfish]

None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.

That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.

They did not vote to use force in Iraq.

wrong, congress authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco. Both parties are responsible

False.

Nope, true.

 

[RandomVariable]

Woke up this morning....crisis is over, market is rebounding....the only thing that stays the same is Obabble wants to tax and spend.

Republicans will push Putin's actions into the headlines as hard as possible as long as they think they can make political hay from it. As soon as they feel it has lost its political usefulness, or that it is going badly for them, they will drop it for the next politically expedient topic. What is actually good for the country is not on their list of priorities. All these Republican Senators who were on the circuit Sunday, try to find them today. They have slinked back under their rock.

Yeah, you don't see the conservatives here doing much in the way of denouncing an invasion of another country...do you?

To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.

Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.

Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.

 

[Freewill]

There really wasn't a cause.

None.

The US had been bullying and badgering Iraq for quite some time. And if it didn't sit on such a vast ocean of oil, no one would have really given a fuck about the human rights violations.

There's a bloodbath that's been going on in the Sudan for quite some time. No notice from the US..and there's plenty of other examples.

No one..save the right wing of this country, feels that invasion was in any way justified. And in fact, it's made things a hell of a lot worse for the entire world.

What you really mean is you don't give a fuk because it was Bush. Did you see one US interest in the Balkins when we bombed those people for 72 days killing Chinese nationals in the process? What were the US interests in Lybia and Syria? Sure those three are good examples of liberal wars, no risks to our side just slaughter the other into submission. And what did we get for it Lybia???? Benghazi. I see your point with the Sudan why do you think a black president apparently doesn't give a crap? At least Bush helped and was loved by the African people. I am sure Obama is too but only for one reason.

What is really a pile of dung is that the left is claiming the right is rooting Putin on when they are not but the left had/has no problem using the Iraq war, which they voted for, as political fodder. Our men didn't die for nothing no matter how low the liberals want to go.

These are relatively easy points to address:

The Balkans were in US interest because Yugoslavia had just dissolved and it was going to become a bloodbath. Europe was not going to act either. Having a region that big in turmoil next to the "breadbasket" of the world was not a good option. Additionally, the US really did stop a genocide. The Balkans was a raging success..except to you folks.

Libya has oil that our allies France makes use of..and it's in their national interest. Additionally? Mommar Gaddafi, A TERRORIST, that authored the killing of close to 100 Americans over Lockerbie was the head of that Country. Funny you folks always seem to forget that. Probably because it was Reagan that started the shitstorm with him but chickened out when this guy REALLY was involved in terrorism. France got what it wanted and we got what we wanted. Still a work in progress.

Syria? Well that's the result of Iraq. Instability was the gift of that invasion. Iraq unleashed a torrent of violence that has shaken every country in the region. And it was the Republicans that were tearing their hair out for involvement up until Obama was going to get involved. Then they called for a vote. When they got that vote? They complained they couldn't be bothered because they were on vacation. You CAN'T make this stuff up.

As to the rest of you post? Democrats were lied too. And lied too after a terrorist attack. Not only that? They were told that if they didn't vote for the Iraq war, they were on the side of terrorists. That's pretty powerful propaganda.

Saddam was committing genocide the same as in Yugoslavia. We bombed ever bridge over the Danube and then paid to rebuild them. Don't you think there might have been some other way? Certainly you think so because you support Saddam and say he should not have been taken out. Yet he actually proved to be a threat to our interests or do you forget Kwuit and his eco damage by blowing the well heads?

But it is really ahoot when you ADMIT that we bombed a country because of oil. Really quite hypocritical. Iraq caused Syria? Really, you need a link to that connection.

I see concerning the Iraq war you are invoking the "democrats are too stupid to know the truth or find it for themselves. Who lied to the Clinton's before Bush? Who lied to Kerry before the turn coat changed his mind? No one lied except those on the left that wish to belittle the sacrifice of our brave volunteers who served their country.

 

[bedowin62]

Left-wing nutjobs cheer obama's naked aggresion.


idiots n hypocrites

 

[Redfish]

Republicans will push Putin's actions into the headlines as hard as possible as long as they think they can make political hay from it. As soon as they feel it has lost its political usefulness, or that it is going badly for them, they will drop it for the next politically expedient topic. What is actually good for the country is not on their list of priorities. All these Republican Senators who were on the circuit Sunday, try to find them today. They have slinked back under their rock.

Yeah, you don't see the conservatives here doing much in the way of denouncing an invasion of another country...do you?

To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.

Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.

Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.

Both parties are using this for political gain.

we should not give a flying fuck if Ukraine returns to being part of Russia. It has zero affect on the USA.

It is not our role in the world to decide who is right and wrong in every territorial dispute.

 

[candycorn]

Republicans will push Putin's actions into the headlines as hard as possible as long as they think they can make political hay from it. As soon as they feel it has lost its political usefulness, or that it is going badly for them, they will drop it for the next politically expedient topic. What is actually good for the country is not on their list of priorities. All these Republican Senators who were on the circuit Sunday, try to find them today. They have slinked back under their rock.

Yeah, you don't see the conservatives here doing much in the way of denouncing an invasion of another country...do you?

To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event. Benghazi: attacking Obama by claiming he let four people die needlessly causes a lot of political damage, very significant event; Gunwalking operation gets out of control and border guard dies: claim Obama administration was directly involved and practically pulled the trigger, very significant event; IRS flags 501(c)(4) applications by key words due to massive inflow of requests and lack of staff: Obama administration abuse of power, significant event; Hundreds of thousands of people running out of unemployment benefits: can not place blame effectively, non-event; Millions of illegal immigrants and no systemic way to address the problem: possibility damaging to party, event does not exist; ACA helps millions: event is good but can change image of event to fit needs, create new event.

Now we have; Putin invades Ukraine: event is significant as blame can be applied to Obama, significant event as defined by the right-wing, for the time being.

Republicans don't care about right and wrong, morality and ethics, or any of those other nuances which might make an event complicated. They are self-serving for their own political power and in turn what wealth and power they can bring to the people who bankroll their reelections. I watched the latest House Budget Committee session yesterday, all two hours of it. One of the Republican Representatives, I can remember exactly which one of two it was, stated that while working out the language of the bi-annual budget resolution that it was he best day in Congress they had ever had. If he enjoys working together as a team so much he should leave the Republican party. Of course he is not used to communicating and working together to solve problems, he's a Republican. They don't do that kind of thing. It distracts from determining the significance of events.

No Labels: Stop Fighting. Start Fixing.

This is a classic Washington crisis. Few outside of the political sphere in the US give two sh**s about Ukraine and they only know its a country from the following:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLtF_PxbYw]Ukraine is game to you!? - YouTube[/ame]

Cramer is playing the part of Putin
Newman is playing the part of whoever the leader of the Ukraine was/is.

Seriously, this means nothing to anyone who doesn't have people there. Yet because it's a chance to slam Obama so it's got traction. You hear very little in the way of condemnation of Putin's actions or suggestions as to what he should do otherwise.

Calling in loans and recalling ambassadors may do more than we think but its likely to only result in tit for tat.

 

[Sallow]

You're thinking about the Hannity forum. Remember Okiefest..you know..when all you big bad conservatives were going to show up and kick our liberal butts in the boxing ring?

Only people that showed up was Stephen and Terry..and of course..your dog.

But that's another story.

And not once did I side with a foreign leader against Bush.

I was against the invasion of Iraq..and many of Bush's policies..and said so.

Even though you and your cronies bought into the line "You are either with us or with the Terrorists".

You guys were pro-torture, pro-Patriot Act, pro unlimited detention with no trial..heck you were in with that whole Bush doctrine thing, hook line and sinker.

That was REALLY un-constitutional by the way.

I never heard anything about a boxing match. I question that happned, but i do remember Okiefest....

Not once? I remember those days as well, when you all were siding with the phrench against Bush. There were others as well, though they've been deposed now...Might have been that Eye-tallian fuck..can't recall his name...

Funny how your opposing Iraq is not treason, but our opposing Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine is treasonous.

BTW....the torture wasn't exactly hair splitting stuff and it was done on the enemy, you know, those guys willing to kill us all? The Patriot Act? The one that the Democrats voted for, and have been modifying to use against political groups in the USA? And I remember right, both Liability and Myself were pretty much skeptical of the Patriot Act. We both said it was legal, but walked the razors edge and worried about it in the hands of a Democrat....turns out we were yet again, correct to fear that. But then, the made up and phoney Bush Doctrine thing was something that was tossed around a lot, but never proven.

So much for that....

The point is, for every vile and vitriolic thing you and the left said about Bush, you have zero room to complain when it is hurled (rightly) at Obama. Kettle, met pot.

Oh, Sallow will bring up the Patriot Act and calling conservatives "pro-torture" on measures used against "Muslim extremists" to extract information used to keep the United States safe from further terrorist attacks ( as I have been unable to find any cases where water boarding was used on American citizens ). Yet Obama has decided to up the ante by turning to drones, as a measure to kill off our threats overseas. Drones that have, by the way, met no resistance from this administration as an added tool to be used against our own citizens. Then Sallow wants to lecture conservatives about Constitutionality?

Water boarding wasn't the only form of torture used by the American Military and Special Ops. They killed a Iraqi Military Officer in Iraq by suffocating him with a sleeping bag.

U.S. Officer Convicted in Death of Iraqi General : NPR

Killed a cab driver at Bagram Airport by hanging him from the ceiling and beating him to death.

Bagram torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And had a real party at Abu Gharib.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you "not remembering" Americans were tortured doesn't mean it didn't happen:

As was the case with Jose Padillia:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/opinion/beyond-debate.html?_r=0

And John Walker Lindh:

John Walker Lindh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point stands. The US Constitution holds that rights be extended to prisoners captured by US forces.

 

[bedowin62]

left-wing nutjobs cheered Hugo Chavez' naked aggresion; and laughed when he insulted President Bush.
left-wing nutjob cheered Castro's nake aggression for decades


idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

sigh


waterboarding/

what is the board about?

libs are morons who cant stay on topic

 

[bedowin62]

Progressive groups have sued the obama Administration; saying in many ways the obama anti-terror program is WORSE than Bush's

true story

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Freewill]

There really wasn't a cause.

None.

The US had been bullying and badgering Iraq for quite some time. And if it didn't sit on such a vast ocean of oil, no one would have really given a fuck about the human rights violations.

There's a bloodbath that's been going on in the Sudan for quite some time. No notice from the US..and there's plenty of other examples.

No one..save the right wing of this country, feels that invasion was in any way justified. And in fact, it's made things a hell of a lot worse for the entire world.

What you really mean is you don't give a fuk because it was Bush. Did you see one US interest in the Balkins when we bombed those people for 72 days killing Chinese nationals in the process? What were the US interests in Lybia and Syria? Sure those three are good examples of liberal wars, no risks to our side just slaughter the other into submission. And what did we get for it Lybia???? Benghazi. I see your point with the Sudan why do you think a black president apparently doesn't give a crap? At least Bush helped and was loved by the African people. I am sure Obama is too but only for one reason.

What is really a pile of dung is that the left is claiming the right is rooting Putin on when they are not but the left had/has no problem using the Iraq war, which they voted for, as political fodder. Our men didn't die for nothing no matter how low the liberals want to go.

As for Iraq, let us start by saying I would not have voted for war in Iraq if I were to have a chance but let us see what those who did had to say, I know this is a rehash but apparently liberals have ADD.

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. * video

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998 *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998. *

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001. *

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. *

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002. *

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002. *

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies..."
John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002 * video

"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. *

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002. *

"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. *

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002. * video

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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. *


Now go here and see what else you have forgotten:

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

None of this has any relevance. Bush already had the authorization to invade Iraq from the Afghanistan resolution, which authorized him to root out terrorists.

That was his rationale, and what he promised to rely on if Congress didn't go through the motions of giving him the authority to use force in Iraq.

They did not vote to use force in Iraq.

Can't imagine someone contradicting themselves so well in three sentences.

I am not going to say you are not telling the truth. I am going to say that your are a droid repeating what you want to believe and what you handlers told you. I think you believe it to be true just like a lunatic believes the sky not to be blue.

Here is the title of what they voted on: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
H.J.Res.114

Iraqi War Resolution - Text of Iraq Resolution and Roll Call Vote Authorizing War In Iraq

Are you going to pull a Clinton and say that it depends on ones definition of force?

 

[Iceweasel]

To all Republicans the significance of events around the world are measured by how damage can be done to the president if the administration is blamed for the event.

In other words, you can't defend Obama's incompetence and must place blame elsewhere.

 

[Synthaholic]

wrong, congress authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco. Both parties are responsible

Actually..that's not even the case.

They gave the President the Authorization to Use Military Force.

Bush could have given the UN time to finish their work.

He did not.

Additionally, as it's been pointed out so many times before, the President controls the Intel.

And he used a major terrorist attack to float the agenda of the PNAC.

Bush could not, and did not, go into Iraq on his own, he did not have that authority or the funding to make it happen.

Both parties in congress voted to authorize and fund that stupid action that cost many american lives and billions of dollars for nothing, Afghanistan will show the same result. We should have learned when we lost 58,000 americans and billions in viet nam for NOTHING, but we didn't learn a thing from it. pathetic.

He certainly did! It was his decision, and his alone.