Question: why do liberals always say Bush started TWO unwarranted wars?

[JoeB131]

Bush recognized what would happen if we pulled out too early. He called for a surge and it worked. By 2011, Iraq was pacified, that is until Obama ordered a complete withdrawal of US troops from the country. Everything happening now was forewarned against by President Bush in 2007.
]

Let's not forget, that it clearly wasn't important enough for you to get your fat ass off the couch and down to a recruiting station...

But let's be honest here, Iraq was not "pacified". If the only thing keeping it pacified was the presence of American troops, it wasn't "pacified".

And how long would we had to have stayed to make the Sunnis and Shi'ites love each other.

Here's a hint. The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been fighting each other for 1400 years.

 

[JoeB131]

All good Americans from responsible right to the left recognize Bush started ONE unwarranted war and turned a just Afghanistan excursion into an unjustified war.

And you forget how many times Democrats claimed credit for Iraq once it was pacified.

That 'unwarranted' war became a political tool to win Obama an election. Most good Americans will know, left or right, that the Democratic party flip flopped on the Iraq War. Oh, lets not forget they voted for it in the Senate. Please, do tell us how Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lastly, the Afghanistan Invasion became plenty justified to Democrats when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Democrats and Republicans alike were dancing in the streets when the news came down.

"Al Qaeda is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead!"

-President Obama

Democrats flipped-flopped on the war because it became obvious after a certain point that BUSH LIED.

yOu know, that's kind of an important detail.

 

[rightwinger]

All good Americans from responsible right to the left recognize Bush started ONE unwarranted war and turned a just Afghanistan excursion into an unjustified war.

And you forget how many times Democrats claimed credit for Iraq once it was pacified.

That 'unwarranted' war became a political tool to win Obama an election. Most good Americans will know, left or right, that the Democratic party flip flopped on the Iraq War. Oh, lets not forget they voted for it in the Senate. Please, do tell us how Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lastly, the Afghanistan Invasion became plenty justified to Democrats when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Democrats and Republicans alike were dancing in the streets when the news came down.

"Al Qaeda is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead!"

-President Obama

There was only one vote to invade Iraq....

and Bush held that one vote

 

[Theowl32]

All good Americans from responsible right to the left recognize Bush started ONE unwarranted war and turned a just Afghanistan excursion into an unjustified war.

And you forget how many times Democrats claimed credit for Iraq once it was pacified.

That 'unwarranted' war became a political tool to win Obama an election. Most good Americans will know, left or right, that the Democratic party flip flopped on the Iraq War. Oh, lets not forget they voted for it in the Senate. Please, do tell us how Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lastly, the Afghanistan Invasion became plenty justified to Democrats when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Democrats and Republicans alike were dancing in the streets when the news came down.

"Al Qaeda is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead!"

-President Obama

There was only one vote to invade Iraq....

and Bush held that one vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I even bolded it for you, since you may have a hard time reading all of those words.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I put the name in bold face that you will be voting in 2016, since you seem to care so much about who voted for the war.


Here she is in her own words, not that you care cause you are a liberal and so therefore a blatant hypocrite.




before you predictably say Booooooosh lied and she believed his lies, let us look again one more time what democrats said about wmds before Boooooooosh took office.

Oldie but goody




Let us see their blatant double talk everyone




Remember when they claimed through this thread that they never claimed he started two wars, but that is all they have done for 10 years. They have even done it in this thread, and then they deny they ever did that.


I stand in awe at how liberals cannot see past their shit.

 

[Theowl32]

I KNOW THESE ARE MANY WORDS, BUT THIS IS THE REALITY ABOUT THE WAR THAT WE ARE IN. IT IS NOT OVER, AND IT WILL NEVER REALLY BE OVER. NOT IN OUR LIFETIMES, BUT THIS IS THE REALITY.

FROM YESTERDAY:

---------------------------------

This war on terror was never just going to be about getting JUST BIN LADEN and anyone thinking that live in fairy tale world. This is essentially an eternal war that is really never going to end. At least not in the near future. It was suppose to be a long term plan, and long term meaning 30 or 50 year plan. Maybe even permanent.

It is not about simple thumping them and then leaving. That is what most of the public did not get and does not get now. Our enemy knows it and takes advantage of our naivety. Of course we have an element here in this country that uses terms like "occupy" or that we "invaded Iraq." No, those are hot button words it is pathetic on the part of those that have no clue what we are fighting. Never did, never will.

Rebuilding the nation is essential in this LONG TERM plan or else everything we are FIGHTING FOR is lost. What are we fighting for? One, gaining allies in the region through education. There are actually several middle eastern countries that are not as backwards as you would think. United Emirates for example. There are also elements in Iran that do not want to have anything to do with these fundamentalist elements that dominate the region.

We still have army bases in Japan and Germany. Not for "occupation" as the left still loves to preach, but for logistical purposes. One, we have gained allies in Japan and Germany. You know how impossible that was to believe in 1942? We protect our allies with our presence from elements that would otherwise want to control the region. Their trade routes and their territory. Our presence creates a buffer between our allies and their enemies. Our ally includes South Korea and if not for us, that entire country would be under tyrannical communist rule. Yeah, I guess our mission was not so unjust as the liberals would have you believe. We also have army bases there.

Again, it is not about occupying the countries but about logistics. Rapid troop deployment is also essential. Most if not all of the American public is so ignorant it is stupid. Trying to think past the pebble in your shoe would help.

The barbarians right now are executing people in Iraq. That, is exactly what would have happened if we had abandoned Japan or Germany and left the people to their own devices. It is ridiculous. The 911 attack was not about stopping just one group called al qaeda or one person named Bin Laden.

It was more of an opportunity for us to try and establish something similar to what we established with South Korea, Japan, or Germany etc etc. Anyone thinking this was about trying to track down ONE PERSON or ONE ELEMENT of these throw back fundamentalist are woefully naive and if you do not see what these people are about after 911 and if you cannot see it now after all of the images we see, then it will never happen.

Us, taking ourselves out of that region and simply abandoning those people to those fundamentalist is so simplistic and illustrates pure ignorance. I am wondering where this beloved UN is. The reason why the League of Nations became irrelevant was because of appeasement. Then again, the League of Nations made a fatal mistake by crushing Germany and insisting on them paying for reparations after WWI.Woodrow Wilson to his credit warned that the harsh treatment was going to result in another war, and he was right. The world left Germany to its own devices and did not even try to help them rebuild. As a result a man got a foothold on the psyche of a desperate people.


If only people had a clue what it is to just abandon these regions after we have spilled our blood. It is unreal, and one of the most common mistakes through out history.


Charlie Wilson states it.....

"These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who made the sacrifice. And then we fucked up the endgame."

This is what we always do. What is truly unreal is how we still have no real idea what we are fighting in it is never going to end. Imagine the danger we are, considering if a small group of these people do actually acquire some sort of WMD. It only takes a few ounces of weaponized small pox to create mass devastation.

I know, it could never happen. We were warned for years that terrorists could hijack planes and fly them into the towers. We always said it could never happen, even though it was clear they were targeting them after the 1993 bombing.

 

[rightwinger]

And you forget how many times Democrats claimed credit for Iraq once it was pacified.

That 'unwarranted' war became a political tool to win Obama an election. Most good Americans will know, left or right, that the Democratic party flip flopped on the Iraq War. Oh, lets not forget they voted for it in the Senate. Please, do tell us how Bush and the Republicans are solely responsible for getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lastly, the Afghanistan Invasion became plenty justified to Democrats when Osama Bin Laden was killed. Democrats and Republicans alike were dancing in the streets when the news came down.

"Al Qaeda is on the run, and Osama Bin Laden is dead!"

-President Obama

There was only one vote to invade Iraq....

and Bush held that one vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I even bolded it for you, since you may have a hard time reading all of those words.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I put the name in bold face that you will be voting in 2016, since you seem to care so much about who voted for the war.


Here she is in her own words, not that you care cause you are a liberal and so therefore a blatant hypocrite.




before you predictably say Booooooosh lied and she believed his lies, let us look again one more time what democrats said about wmds before Boooooooosh took office.

Oldie but goody




Let us see their blatant double talk everyone




Remember when they claimed through this thread that they never claimed he started two wars, but that is all they have done for 10 years. They have even done it in this thread, and then they deny they ever did that.


I stand in awe at how liberals cannot see past their shit.

Why did you leave this one out?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

 

[Sallow]

Bush recognized what would happen if we pulled out too early. He called for a surge and it worked. By 2011, Iraq was pacified, that is until Obama ordered a complete withdrawal of US troops from the country. Everything happening now was forewarned against by President Bush in 2007.

As sectarian violence threatened to destroy this young democracy, our coalition faced a choice. One option was to help the Iraqi government tamp down the sectarian violence and provide them with the breathing space they need to achieve reconciliation -- provide them the breathing space they need to take the political and economic measures necessary to make sure our military efforts were effective. The other option was to pull back from the capital, before the Iraqis could defend themselves against these radicals and extremists and death squads and killers. That risked turning Iraq into a cauldron of chaos. Our enemy, the enemies of freedom, love chaos. Out of that chaos they could find new safe havens. Withdrawal would have emboldened these radicals and extremists. It would have confirmed their belief that our nations were weak. It would help them gain new recruits, new resources. It would cause them to believe they could strike free nations at their choice.

Withdrawal would have increased the probability that coalition troops would be forced to return to Iraq one day, and confront an enemy that is even more dangerous. Failure in Iraq should be unacceptable to the civilized world. The risks are enormous.

So after an extensive review, I ordered a new strategy that is dramatically different from the one we were pursuing before. I listened to our military commanders; I listened to politicians from both sides of the aisle. I made a decision. I appointed a new commander, General David Petraeus, to carry out this strategy. This new strategy recognizes that our top priority must be to help the Iraqi government secure its capital so they can make economic and political progress.

-President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, MacDill AFB, May 1, 2007

President Bush Addresses CENTCOM Coalition Conference

Iraq was never "pacified".

Some violence went down because the US began bribing the Sunnis.

But it never abated.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because they like to forget that:

1) 9/11 happened
2) That both had overwhelming bipartisan support
3) That Obama has been in charge of both since he was elected.

 

[The T]

Because they like to forget that:

1) 9/11 happened
2) That both had overwhelming bipartisan support
3) That Obama has been in charge of both since he was elected.

And wrecked BOTH. Think what's going on in Iraq is alarming? Just wait until we withdraw from Afghanistan...

 

[Theowl32]

There was only one vote to invade Iraq....

and Bush held that one vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I even bolded it for you, since you may have a hard time reading all of those words.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I put the name in bold face that you will be voting in 2016, since you seem to care so much about who voted for the war.


Here she is in her own words, not that you care cause you are a liberal and so therefore a blatant hypocrite.




before you predictably say Booooooosh lied and she believed his lies, let us look again one more time what democrats said about wmds before Boooooooosh took office.

Oldie but goody




Let us see their blatant double talk everyone




Remember when they claimed through this thread that they never claimed he started two wars, but that is all they have done for 10 years. They have even done it in this thread, and then they deny they ever did that.


I stand in awe at how liberals cannot see past their shit.

Why did you leave this one out?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Yet he expanded the war in Afghanistan, used drone strikes to kill of those mythical terrorists that you all said was a bumper sticker, has kept Gitmo open even though he promised he was going to close it in his first year, and claimed al qaeda was on the run as a result of his policies.

Either way that is not the point. YOU said Bush was the ONE vote. I proved you are either an ignorant ass or a liar or both.

I think you are merely an ignorant ass, who is nothing but a political hack. You shifted the argument from your false claim and brought up what the lying sack of shit once said about the war.

That is irrelevant to your false claims. Either way, even if you did care about the liar in chief said as he was doing nothing in the senate, you should be pissed at the drone strikes and him expanding the "unwarranted" illegal war in Afghanistan.

Like I said, you do not care. You stand for nothing. Same goes for sallow who thanks you for your ignorant dreck.

 

[Contumacious]

All good Americans from responsible right to the left recognize Bush started ONE unwarranted war and turned a just Afghanistan excursion into an unjustified war.

Iraq war unnecessary;

Afghanistan should have been limited to the Constitutionally authorized "letters of marque and reprisals " proviso.

 

[rightwinger]

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I even bolded it for you, since you may have a hard time reading all of those words.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

I put the name in bold face that you will be voting in 2016, since you seem to care so much about who voted for the war.


Here she is in her own words, not that you care cause you are a liberal and so therefore a blatant hypocrite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWA2ehTOrk


before you predictably say Booooooosh lied and she believed his lies, let us look again one more time what democrats said about wmds before Boooooooosh took office.

Oldie but goody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E


Let us see their blatant double talk everyone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwWA2ehTOrk


Remember when they claimed through this thread that they never claimed he started two wars, but that is all they have done for 10 years. They have even done it in this thread, and then they deny they ever did that.


I stand in awe at how liberals cannot see past their shit.

Why did you leave this one out?

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Barack Obama Oct 2 2002

Yet he expanded the war in Afghanistan, used drone strikes to kill of those mythical terrorists that you all said was a bumper sticker, has kept Gitmo open even though he promised he was going to close it in his first year, and claimed al qaeda was on the run as a result of his policies.

Either way that is not the point. YOU said Bush was the ONE vote. I proved you are either an ignorant ass or a liar or both.

I think you are merely an ignorant ass, who is nothing but a political hack. You shifted the argument from your false claim and brought up what the lying sack of shit once said about the war.

That is irrelevant to your false claims. Either way, even if you did care about the liar in chief said as he was doing nothing in the senate, you should be pissed at the drone strikes and him expanding the "unwarranted" illegal war in Afghanistan.

Like I said, you do not care. You stand for nothing. Same goes for sallow who thanks you for your ignorant dreck.

Congress authorized an invasion if Bush saw it as necessary

Bush waited three months after the Congressional vote before he made the decision to invade as commander in chief. He made that decision not because Iraq had become a greater threat but because UN inspectors were starting to indicate that Saddam had no WMDs and they could prove it if they had more time

Bush, knowing that his chance to invade was slipping away, ordered the invasion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration,[6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Senior U.S. officials ordered the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to investigate Blix to gather "sufficient ammunition to undermine" him so that the U.S. could start the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. officials were upset that the CIA did not uncover such information.[

 

[Sallow]

Yet he expanded the war in Afghanistan, used drone strikes to kill of those mythical terrorists that you all said was a bumper sticker, has kept Gitmo open even though he promised he was going to close it in his first year, and claimed al qaeda was on the run as a result of his policies.

Either way that is not the point. YOU said Bush was the ONE vote. I proved you are either an ignorant ass or a liar or both.

I think you are merely an ignorant ass, who is nothing but a political hack. You shifted the argument from your false claim and brought up what the lying sack of shit once said about the war.

That is irrelevant to your false claims. Either way, even if you did care about the liar in chief said as he was doing nothing in the senate, you should be pissed at the drone strikes and him expanding the "unwarranted" illegal war in Afghanistan.

Like I said, you do not care. You stand for nothing. Same goes for sallow who thanks you for your ignorant dreck.

As to your first part, President Obama did expand operations in Afghanistan as he promised he would do. In my view? That wasn't a good idea. But had he not done that? He would have very likely been a one term President.

It's also not true that President Obama kept Gitmo open. He issued an executive order to close it and congress circumvented that order by passing legislation. This also goes against the meme you guys have put up that Obama is some kind of dictator.

You've also continued to put up the fact that Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Over and over again it's been proven that the intelligence fed to the American people and the congress was completely false. And it was fed to them by President Bush and his administration. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the process. The Congress can give the President authority to invade and fund the war. But the President is the Commander in Chief. Ultimately? The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. And his alone.

What's happening today in the Middle East was all foretold by critics of the invasion in the first place. And it's happening EXACTLY as predicted.

 

[kaz]

They were given ample warning and opportunity to hand over bin laden and thumbed their noses at us - Liberal Half Wits completely ignore the 3,000 + Americans killed on 9-11 as the catalyst - it's an inconvenient fact you choose to ignore and do a grave injustice to not only their memories, but our country and the memories of the brave young men who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq -

You're the same genre of socio-fascist scumbags who spit on my brothers and cousins when they came back from Nam .

No THAT'S Not the Truth .

Before we started bombing Afghanistan, the Taliban had demanded evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the attack and had offered to try him before their own Islamic court inside Afghanistan . I think we all know what the end result of such a kangaroo court would be.

It was a ploy, a stall tactic, simple minded liberals and indoctrinated mental midgets such as yourself are all too willing to beleive and propogate any cynical negativity directed against American Policy and American Interests , you're the first to bail out when your country needs you , and the first to spit on those who don't -you're a disgrace to Our Country and our proud Heritage - a cynical parasite .

After we started bombing Afghanistan,The Taliban offerred to turn him over to a neutral third country that could not be influenced by the US -[N.Korea perhaps] - and you assholes really think that a compromise was the right thing to do at this point ?

blackhawk: Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda started the war in Afghanistan with 9-11-2001 attacks if anyone right, left, or center chooses to deny this then there is really nothing more to say to paraphrase Christian Slater from broken arrow there mind has taken a walk off the map.

AS for the rest of your post sealybobo - I think you've come unhinged -it's not even worth the space it takes up on my screen. Get back to me after you've put the crack pipe away, .... or as per blackhawk and c. slater perhaps your mind has taken a walk off the map ! .

Yes, the Taliban offer that after we stop the bombing then we can convince them by their own rules that their ally who they hosted and abetted was guilty, then they would do something! It was a pathetically shallow ploy targeted at only the most stupid and gullible and their allies to mindlessly repeat. In step the Democrats to gladly oblige...

Pass, they worked with Al Qaeda to murder thousands of Americans in South Manhattan. The answer to that is to blast the crap out of them and not stop until they've paid many times over.

 

[Theowl32]

Yet he expanded the war in Afghanistan, used drone strikes to kill of those mythical terrorists that you all said was a bumper sticker, has kept Gitmo open even though he promised he was going to close it in his first year, and claimed al qaeda was on the run as a result of his policies.

Either way that is not the point. YOU said Bush was the ONE vote. I proved you are either an ignorant ass or a liar or both.

I think you are merely an ignorant ass, who is nothing but a political hack. You shifted the argument from your false claim and brought up what the lying sack of shit once said about the war.

That is irrelevant to your false claims. Either way, even if you did care about the liar in chief said as he was doing nothing in the senate, you should be pissed at the drone strikes and him expanding the "unwarranted" illegal war in Afghanistan.

Like I said, you do not care. You stand for nothing. Same goes for sallow who thanks you for your ignorant dreck.

As to your first part, President Obama did expand operations in Afghanistan as he promised he would do. In my view? That wasn't a good idea. But had he not done that? He would have very likely been a one term President.

It's also not true that President Obama kept Gitmo open. He issued an executive order to close it and congress circumvented that order by passing legislation. This also goes against the meme you guys have put up that Obama is some kind of dictator.

You've also continued to put up the fact that Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Over and over again it's been proven that the intelligence fed to the American people and the congress was completely false. And it was fed to them by President Bush and his administration. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the process. The Congress can give the President authority to invade and fund the war. But the President is the Commander in Chief. Ultimately? The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. And his alone.

What's happening today in the Middle East was all foretold by critics of the invasion in the first place. And it's happening EXACTLY as predicted.

Are you fully aware Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY for over a year? What does that mean in regards to his promise that he was going to close Gitmo in his first fucking year? Who circumvented what?

Ignorant lying asshole.

 

[Camp]

Yet he expanded the war in Afghanistan, used drone strikes to kill of those mythical terrorists that you all said was a bumper sticker, has kept Gitmo open even though he promised he was going to close it in his first year, and claimed al qaeda was on the run as a result of his policies.

Either way that is not the point. YOU said Bush was the ONE vote. I proved you are either an ignorant ass or a liar or both.

I think you are merely an ignorant ass, who is nothing but a political hack. You shifted the argument from your false claim and brought up what the lying sack of shit once said about the war.

That is irrelevant to your false claims. Either way, even if you did care about the liar in chief said as he was doing nothing in the senate, you should be pissed at the drone strikes and him expanding the "unwarranted" illegal war in Afghanistan.

Like I said, you do not care. You stand for nothing. Same goes for sallow who thanks you for your ignorant dreck.

As to your first part, President Obama did expand operations in Afghanistan as he promised he would do. In my view? That wasn't a good idea. But had he not done that? He would have very likely been a one term President.

It's also not true that President Obama kept Gitmo open. He issued an executive order to close it and congress circumvented that order by passing legislation. This also goes against the meme you guys have put up that Obama is some kind of dictator.

You've also continued to put up the fact that Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Over and over again it's been proven that the intelligence fed to the American people and the congress was completely false. And it was fed to them by President Bush and his administration. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the process. The Congress can give the President authority to invade and fund the war. But the President is the Commander in Chief. Ultimately? The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. And his alone.

What's happening today in the Middle East was all foretold by critics of the invasion in the first place. And it's happening EXACTLY as predicted.

Are you fully aware Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY for over a year? What does that mean in regards to his promise that he was going to close Gitmo in his first fucking year? Who circumvented what?

Ignorant lying asshole.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=K406w8AzryM]That's Not True! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[kaz]

As to your first part, President Obama did expand operations in Afghanistan as he promised he would do. In my view? That wasn't a good idea. But had he not done that? He would have very likely been a one term President.

It's also not true that President Obama kept Gitmo open. He issued an executive order to close it and congress circumvented that order by passing legislation. This also goes against the meme you guys have put up that Obama is some kind of dictator.

You've also continued to put up the fact that Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Over and over again it's been proven that the intelligence fed to the American people and the congress was completely false. And it was fed to them by President Bush and his administration. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the process. The Congress can give the President authority to invade and fund the war. But the President is the Commander in Chief. Ultimately? The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. And his alone.

What's happening today in the Middle East was all foretold by critics of the invasion in the first place. And it's happening EXACTLY as predicted.

Are you fully aware Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY for over a year? What does that mean in regards to his promise that he was going to close Gitmo in his first fucking year? Who circumvented what?

Ignorant lying asshole.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=K406w8AzryM]That's Not True! - YouTube[/ame]

WTF dude, you didn't know Obama had a veto proof, filibuster proof majority? Seriously? That's how he got Obamacare though.

 

[Camp]

Are you fully aware Obama had a SUPER MAJORITY for over a year? What does that mean in regards to his promise that he was going to close Gitmo in his first fucking year? Who circumvented what?

Ignorant lying asshole.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=K406w8AzryM]That's Not True! - YouTube[/ame]

WTF dude, you didn't know Obama had a veto proof, filibuster proof majority? Seriously? That's how he got Obamacare though.

A SUPER MAJORITY is not the same as filibuster proof. And a SUPER MAJORITY must be in both houses. A SUPER MAJORITY never existed in either the Senate or the House. Romney told that lie and suckers still believe it.

 

[Theowl32]

Well the liberals have waved their white flag. I also think it is funny how (other than the fact Obama had a super majority for nearly two years) Obama has bypassed congress several times.

All to the loud cheers of the ignorant hypocrites like rightwinger or the less significant poster....camp. Now all of sudden they claim republicans have stopped him from doing what he supposedly wants with Gitmo. Are they saying he did break the law when he has bypassed congress? Someone decipher that for me please.

They are all over the place. They cannot keep their double talk straight. They of course do an even more amazing thing. They change their spots in the very thread and thank each other for doing it. They deny they saythings in the very thread they say it and thank each other as though they are not constantly contradicting themselves.

Ignorant as hell. Pieces of lying hypocritical shit. All of them.

 

[The T]

Well the liberals have waved their white flag. I also think it is funny how (other than the fact Obama had a super majority for nearly two years) Obama has bypassed congress several times.

All to the loud cheers of the ignorant hypocrites like rightwinger or the less significant poster....camp. Now all of sudden they claim republicans have stopped him from doing what he supposedly wants with Gitmo. Are they saying he did break the law when he has bypassed congress? Someone decipher that for me please.

They are all over the place. They cannot keep their double talk straight. They of course do an even more amazing thing. They change their spots in the very thread and thank each other for doing it. They deny they saythings in the very thread they say it and thank each other as though they are not constantly contradicting themselves.

Ignorant as hell. Pieces of lying hypocritical shit. All of them.

He's still bypassing them.