Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, if anyone hasn't already noticed W lied, they're not going to be interested in the root causes of ME instability, and while W was a clusterfk beyond any imagination, he was only a part in the root cause. He tried to get out of the way of history, but fell over his flightsuit codpiece.old news? It created the instability necessary for Iran to move in and ISIL to formIt's old news though. What's new is he can beat Jeb over the head with it in SC, which is about the redest of all red states.^ thatWhy in the hell would it mean that? Just because Trump expressed the truth about Bush43 it does not mean I want or have to become an imbecile Trump supporter.
Admitting to a known fact does not make any of Trump's policies attractive to intelligent and decent Americans.
he just happens to be right about the worst foreign policy disaster in living memory
OVER 1/2 of the Dems in the House also voted against that senseless, war-for-profit (profited defense contractors ONLY)13534847. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.
That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.
That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.
So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)
The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.
The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.
If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.
I am not defending Bush, he screwed up, but you are trying to defend the dems who spoke the exact same "lies" at the exact same time.
My only point is that they all have blood on their hands. To put it all on Bush is just partisan bullshit.
Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. His containment strategy worked for 8 years
Hillary was one vote out of 100 Senators, it does not reach the level of culpability of ordering an invasion
she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.
She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.Redfish 13540495she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.
No she is not. I've explained that Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when she voted and when SH was in violation of international law for not having allowed inspectors in for four years.
She cannot be held responsible for Bush's huge lie five months down the road. Bush was talking peaceful disarmament in October 2002. He wanted Dem votes to force SH allow UN inspectors back in. Guess what? SH allowed them back and offer to allow the CIA. There was no reason to invade anymore so Bush lied. HRC can't be held responsible for Bush's March 2003 lie. How can she be? Did she hypnotize him into lying or something? Explain your reasoning on this.
I'm surprised she's on the verge of losing the nomination to a 73 yr old socialist who's got as much chance getting a balanced budget, which is the only thing that possibly can stave off wholesale currency devaluation and inflation for foreign commodities, as a snow ball in hell, and who seems to know less about market economics than Putin. But I'm even more surprised some Dem didn't challenge her.
Its easy to cast aspersions about the people who have the gumption to run isn't it?
As I said, a snowball in hell.She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.Redfish 13540495she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.
No she is not. I've explained that Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when she voted and when SH was in violation of international law for not having allowed inspectors in for four years.
She cannot be held responsible for Bush's huge lie five months down the road. Bush was talking peaceful disarmament in October 2002. He wanted Dem votes to force SH allow UN inspectors back in. Guess what? SH allowed them back and offer to allow the CIA. There was no reason to invade anymore so Bush lied. HRC can't be held responsible for Bush's March 2003 lie. How can she be? Did she hypnotize him into lying or something? Explain your reasoning on this.
I'm surprised she's on the verge of losing the nomination to a 73 yr old socialist who's got as much chance getting a balanced budget, which is the only thing that possibly can stave off wholesale currency devaluation and inflation for foreign commodities, as a snow ball in hell, and who seems to know less about market economics than Putin. But I'm even more surprised some Dem didn't challenge her.
except he has the balls to run for the office and propose a plan. You? Not so much.As I said, a snowball in hell.She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.Redfish 13540495she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.
No she is not. I've explained that Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when she voted and when SH was in violation of international law for not having allowed inspectors in for four years.
She cannot be held responsible for Bush's huge lie five months down the road. Bush was talking peaceful disarmament in October 2002. He wanted Dem votes to force SH allow UN inspectors back in. Guess what? SH allowed them back and offer to allow the CIA. There was no reason to invade anymore so Bush lied. HRC can't be held responsible for Bush's March 2003 lie. How can she be? Did she hypnotize him into lying or something? Explain your reasoning on this.
I'm surprised she's on the verge of losing the nomination to a 73 yr old socialist who's got as much chance getting a balanced budget, which is the only thing that possibly can stave off wholesale currency devaluation and inflation for foreign commodities, as a snow ball in hell, and who seems to know less about market economics than Putin. But I'm even more surprised some Dem didn't challenge her.
Oh please. Recess must be over. Get back inside. LOLexcept he has the balls to run for the office and propose a plan. You? Not so much.As I said, a snowball in hell.She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.Redfish 13540495she voted to authorize and fund it, so yes, she is responsible, as they all are.
No she is not. I've explained that Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when she voted and when SH was in violation of international law for not having allowed inspectors in for four years.
She cannot be held responsible for Bush's huge lie five months down the road. Bush was talking peaceful disarmament in October 2002. He wanted Dem votes to force SH allow UN inspectors back in. Guess what? SH allowed them back and offer to allow the CIA. There was no reason to invade anymore so Bush lied. HRC can't be held responsible for Bush's March 2003 lie. How can she be? Did she hypnotize him into lying or something? Explain your reasoning on this.
I'm surprised she's on the verge of losing the nomination to a 73 yr old socialist who's got as much chance getting a balanced budget, which is the only thing that possibly can stave off wholesale currency devaluation and inflation for foreign commodities, as a snow ball in hell, and who seems to know less about market economics than Putin. But I'm even more surprised some Dem didn't challenge her.
so..... you have nothing. What I'm saying is run for office or STFU.Oh please. Recess must be over. Get back inside. LOLexcept he has the balls to run for the office and propose a plan. You? Not so much.As I said, a snowball in hell.She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.Redfish 13540495 No she is not. I've explained that Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when she voted and when SH was in violation of international law for not having allowed inspectors in for four years.
She cannot be held responsible for Bush's huge lie five months down the road. Bush was talking peaceful disarmament in October 2002. He wanted Dem votes to force SH allow UN inspectors back in. Guess what? SH allowed them back and offer to allow the CIA. There was no reason to invade anymore so Bush lied. HRC can't be held responsible for Bush's March 2003 lie. How can she be? Did she hypnotize him into lying or something? Explain your reasoning on this.
I'm surprised she's on the verge of losing the nomination to a 73 yr old socialist who's got as much chance getting a balanced budget, which is the only thing that possibly can stave off wholesale currency devaluation and inflation for foreign commodities, as a snow ball in hell, and who seems to know less about market economics than Putin. But I'm even more surprised some Dem didn't challenge her.
She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.
.
Hillary Clinton on Nov. 19, 2015 in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A specter is haunting Hillary Clinton’s campaign: the specter of Iraq, specifically her Senate vote in 2002 giving President George W. Bush the authority to make war on Iraq. This vote was the main reason she lost the Democratic nomination, six years later, to Sen. Barack Obama. And now, eight years after that, Sen. Bernie Sanders hopes it will be one reason she loses the same contest to him.
At CNN’s Feb. 4 town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, Sanders described the vote, with good reason, as “the key foreign policy vote of modern American history.” Clinton, he suggested, came down on the wrong side of history; Sanders, who voted against a similar bill in the House (where he served at the time), chose the right side.
In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate Columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.
This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.
The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.
“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.
.
"Clinton Splits With Bush on Iraq," The Washington Post March 13, 2003
"Former president Bill Clinton, who has generally supported the Bush administration's Iraq policy in recent remarks, called on his successor yesterday to accept a more relaxed timeline in exchange for support from a majority of the United Nations Security Council members. ..[T]he former president has publicly espoused an approach substantially different from the administration's public stance."
"Deadline for war - Give the inspectors more time, urges Clinton" The Daily Telegraph March 13, 2003 "Bill Clinton yesterday urged the Bush administration to give Hans Blix as much time as he wants to complete weapons inspections in Iraq. The former president broke ranks with his successor...Mr Clinton said war might yet be avoided if Saddam Hussein were given more time to disarm. "
"Clinton recommends U.S. patience on Iraq,"Reuters, February 11, 2003. "Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said in an interview broadcast on Tuesday the United States should exercise patience in its standoff with Iraq to help build allied support for a potential strike."
Exactly. They voted based upon BS Intel fed to them by the likes of neocons such as Doug Feith in the Pentagon. That's the reason the Brit committed suicide after it was revealed the Intel was "sexed up"13541799She failed to come out against the invasion in the spring of 03.
Of course not. Bush sent the troops into combat three days after lying that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 1441 inspectors. It is no failure for a U.S. senator to believe that a Commander in Chief would never lie about the reason to send US troops into major combat like Bush did.
No one really knew that Bush lied on March 17 2003 until Kay and Duelfor reported nothing was found.
Senator Clinton was no different.
Finally some Lefty's have come to learn the context in which she voted and was lied to by Bush, just like Trump says.
.
Hillary Clinton on Nov. 19, 2015 in New York City.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A specter is haunting Hillary Clinton’s campaign: the specter of Iraq, specifically her Senate vote in 2002 giving President George W. Bush the authority to make war on Iraq. This vote was the main reason she lost the Democratic nomination, six years later, to Sen. Barack Obama. And now, eight years after that, Sen. Bernie Sanders hopes it will be one reason she loses the same contest to him.
At CNN’s Feb. 4 town hall in Derry, New Hampshire, Sanders described the vote, with good reason, as “the key foreign policy vote of modern American history.” Clinton, he suggested, came down on the wrong side of history; Sanders, who voted against a similar bill in the House (where he served at the time), chose the right side.
In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.
Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate Columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.
This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.
The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.
“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”
She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”
She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”
Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote
Key statement:
"In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally."
Bush lied to her just like everybody else. There was no stopping the invasion once Bush ordered Shock and Awe to commence.
If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.
.
On October 11, 2002, the day Hillary Clinton and others in the Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution, certain things were known, and other things were not known.
On October 11, 2002, everyone knew:
1. The text of the resolution, which stated that prior to any military action the President must first determine that reliance on peaceful means will not protect the security of the US, or enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions,
2. The US and its allies were negotiating a UN Security Council resolution to compel new intrusive inspections in Iraq,
3. The publicly disclosed Key Judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate, and
4. That the neocons were talking about regime change and disparaging the idea of inspections.
On October 11, 2002 almost no one knew:
5. The extent to which George Bush was or was not bluffing about regime change,
6. That Colin Powell's power and authority would be neutralized by Cheney and Rumsfeld,
7. The extent to which Cheney and Rumsfeld had short-circuited the institutional integrity of the Pentagon and the CIA, and
8. The extent to which the NIE was based on cooked intelligence
In other words, almost no one knew the extent to which the Bush administration was undercutting all of our administrative and constitutional checks and balances. Even today, we don't know the extent of it.
So on October 11, 2002, almost no one could be expected to foresee that:
9. Bush would flagrantly abuse the discretion afforded him under terms of the joint resolution, specifically, his refusal to attempt to reconcile the inspectors' intelligence with the NIE, prior to the invasion, and
10. Bush's agreement to proceed with the inspections process was a sham from the beginning.
And what was Hillary Clinton saying during the months after her vote?
"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003
"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said."
On March 18, 2003, everyone (who was willing to look) knew with substantial certainty that:
11. UN inspections had discredited the NIE,
12. The White House made no effort to reconcile the inspectors findings with their prior intelligence assumptions,
13. The White House offered nothing substantive to refute the inspectors' findings,
14. Hans Blix said the inspectors, who found nothing that presented even a remote danger to the US or Europe, could complete their work in a matter of months,
15. George Bush had promised to call for another Security Council vote to invade, ("Everyone will show their cards,") and totally disregarded that promise a few days later,
16. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others said their was insufficient basis for launching a war at that time,
17. Most of our allies were - including Britain - also advocating more time for the inspections to be completed, and
18. Mainstream media never seriously considered or reported Numbers 11 through 16 above.
Put another way, Number 18 meant that, at a time in the world when a journalist's professionalism and integrity counted most, Helen Thomas stood virtually alone in the Beltway press corps, courageously asking hard questions while surrounded by cowards. Tim Russert's sycophancy stands out because he repeatedly lied about the inspectors.
To this day, Chris Matthews forgets about the elephant in the room. He interviewed White House speech writer Michael Gerson, John McCain, and George Tenet, each of whom repeated the canard that they believed at the time of the invasion that Saddam had WMD. Matthews never referenced the reports by Blix and ElBaradei, which prove that their "beliefs" were based on a reckless indifference to the truth.
Why didn't you capitalize the "A" in America kid?mrs clinton will continue the dismantling of america for the new world order, just like that bastard bill did. They all will. Thinking election after election after election and nothing gets better. You keep on voting though.
flacaltenn 13535801It's just one of my major beefs with partisans. This Bush lied and invaded Iraq BS.
The simple truth is ---- it was time to END the containment. Admit the UN inspectors were correct. and let Saddam out of the box
I don't get how you would insist that Trump is expressing partisan BS. I've explained why we know that Bush lied on March 17, 2003. I've explained why Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq and when the authorization to use force "IF NECESSARY" was passed.
Your simple truth was actually in effect by March 2003. The inspectors were correctly not finding evidence of WMD and they were a few months away from lifting sanctions.
Perhaps you do not know that Dr Blix and Dr El Baradai were the sole human beings that could lift the sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime and there was no way that Bush could stop it. Lifting sanctions on Iraq was not subject to a veto by permanent member states on the UNSC. That is precisely why Bush was forced to lie on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those inspectors that had the authority to lift sanctions when their work was complete.
Bush could not bear the reality that it was beginning to look as if Iraq did not have the long suspected WMD arsenal by March 2003.
His ruse (claims he wanted the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully) was in dissaray when Iraq was declared to be cooperating proactively under Resolution 1441 and no WMD was being found.
You may not know that Saddam Hussein in mid-December 2002 offered Bush and Blair the opportunity to send their intelligence agencies into Iraq to assist in the search for suspected WMD directly in cooperation with the UN inspectors.
From that point on Bush's reliance on any secret intelligence that was not being shared with the UNSC was a flawed and dishonest decision because the White House response to the offer was to let the UN handle that.
It is sad to see this intelligent rather easy to understand truth about events leading to the U.S. invasion of Iraq labeled as partisan BS.
I'd much rather see if you can reject the case I've made that reaches the solid conclusion that Bush lied to justify his desire to invade Iraq.
I realize it's much easier to declare something to be BS than present an argument that Bush did not lie to the American people and their other elected leaders.
