When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Mac1958]

.

Poor misunderstood George. He's a victim.

.

 

[Redfish]

facts are there people, and I would bet good money that Obama who won the past two elections because of Bush II and his decisions. Ill go out on a limb and say the mistakes made from 2000-2008 under a GOP President will continue to cost the GOP elections.

Keep thinking the Democrats were the main instigators, thats for the GOP echo chamber. Most Americans know better and the past few elections prove exactly that. For all intents and purposes Obama should have gotten clobbered this past November.... Bush II, the gift that keeps on giving.

about that NIT game

obama won because the GOP ran weak tickets and because the media refused to tell the truth about the first black president. obama won because he is black and is a good speech reader. it had nothing to do with Bush, grow up

 

[Redfish]

.

Poor misunderstood George. He's a victim.

.

Soros is not a victim, where do you get this crap

 

[ArmyCowboy]

facts are there people, and I would bet good money that Obama who won the past two elections because of Bush II and his decisions. Ill go out on a limb and say the mistakes made from 2000-2008 under a GOP President will continue to cost the GOP elections.

Keep thinking the Democrats were the main instigators, thats for the GOP echo chamber. Most Americans know better and the past few elections prove exactly that. For all intents and purposes Obama should have gotten clobbered this past November.... Bush II, the gift that keeps on giving.

about that NIT game

obama won because the GOP ran weak tickets and because the media refused to tell the truth about the first black president. obama won because he is black and is a good speech reader. it had nothing to do with Bush, grow up

Are you unfamiliar with the pendulum effect in politics?

The fact that the economy was in shambles, the wars were unpopular and Bush was blamed by the American public (he left office with a 28% approval rating) certainly helped Obama win.

Not the ridiculous idea that he won because he was black.

Eeesh.

 

[Politico]

Everyone never agreed.

 

[regent]

Would the Congress have passed the Iraq resolution if Bush had not pushed it with some made-up fear tactics? Had Bush just been honest regarding the Iraq status we would not have gone to war? If Bush had exercised his presidential rights under the resolution we would not have gone to war. The Iraq war from beginning to end was Bush, and now the GOP instead of being proud of how Bush saved us from Iraq, is trying to dump the entire decision of the Iraq War on anyone that stands still for twenty seconds.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Would the Congress have passed the Iraq resolution if Bush had not pushed it with some made-up fear tactics?

Oh bullshit. Stop being an obtuse asshole. YOu have NO evidence that President Bush "made-up" any fear tactics. The Bush Administration, in fact, ended up merely repeating what the PRIOR Administration and most of the top Democrats in Washington had been saying for years.

Or do you REALLY want to pretend that poor widdle Congwess is too fucking simple-minded to be trusted with such important matters? Give it a rest. You sound ridiculous. No. You ARE ridiculous.

You idiots are just hell bent on denying your own responsibility for what happened. But you liberals and Democrats have shared responsibility no matter how much you squeal.

 

[expatriate]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. That was and remains a totally factually accurate statement. Add up the total number of democrats in both chambers and compare that number to the number of democrats who voted for the resolution. Is simple math that fucking hard for you???

and AGAIN... to say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was a lie, because there was indeed degrees of doubt. There was NOT absolute certainty. What Bush "believed" is of no matter when he claims a lack of uncertainty when he KNEW that such lack of uncertainty did not exist. He was well aware of the caveats and qualifiers that were included in the intelligence assessments and he made a conscious willful decision to disregard them. He lied. If he had said something like, "I have little doubt" or "there is very little doubt"... or any one of a number of other phrases that accurately portrayed the situation, he would not be guilty of LYING. He chose to LIE instead. That's a fact. Deal with it.

And of course, we knew that Saddam had HAD WMD's... we kept the receipts when we sold them to him... but what he HAD in the 1980's is irrelevant to what sort of a threat he posed in 2003.

And again... if you think that a pit bull who terrorizes neighborhood children is, in fact, a TERRORIST, then YOU are the moron. Learn to use the language with precision or don't use it at all.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. That was and remains a totally factually accurate statement.

It remains now as before, a completely uninteresting and uninformative factoid. It is of no actual utility to the conversation. We don't decide whether a bill is passed or not by adding House vote tallies to Senate vote tallies.

Add up the total number of democrats in both chambers and compare that number to the number of democrats who voted for the resolution. Is simple math that fucking hard for you???

Not at all. I am just averse to your appalling lack of logic and fascination with useless factoids.

and AGAIN... to say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was a lie, because there was indeed degrees of doubt. * * * *

And again, you are wrong. It cannot be a lie if the person saying it believed it, even if he was wrong. Words still have meaning (except apparently to you).

Was your little baby noggin bounced like a basketball at birth or did you come upon your brain damage later in life?

 

[Billo_Really]

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

facts are there people, and I would bet good money that Obama who won the past two elections because of Bush II and his decisions. Ill go out on a limb and say the mistakes made from 2000-2008 under a GOP President will continue to cost the GOP elections.

Keep thinking the Democrats were the main instigators, thats for the GOP echo chamber. Most Americans know better and the past few elections prove exactly that. For all intents and purposes Obama should have gotten clobbered this past November.... Bush II, the gift that keeps on giving.

about that NIT game

obama won because the GOP ran weak tickets and because the media refused to tell the truth about the first black president. obama won because he is black and is a good speech reader. it had nothing to do with Bush

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight......​

January 13, 2008​

"The recession-deniers were muzzled by a horrendous last two weeks of December, and the gloom-and-doomers are now out in force. Their key arguments:

* Plummeting housing will now drag down the rest of the economy.

*The "bad debt" problem is not just "sub-prime" folks who should never have have taken out mortgages in the first place. It includes credit card debt, "high quality" mortgages, car loans, and other leverage that have recently become a consumer way of life.

*Pressure on consumers is leading to a reduction in consumer spending (70% of economy), which, in turn, will lead to a reduction in spending by companies that sell stuff to consumers.

*The question now is not "will there be a recession?" but "how bad will it get?"

*The most optimistic forecasts in a NYT gloom-and-doom round-up are for three crappy quarters, regardless of what the Fed does. Less optimistic forecasts suggest that we are, well, screwed.

After blowing the last downturn, we've been worried this one since last summer. We also suspect that, given the importance of housing to the economy and debt to consumer spending, the recession will be deeper and more prolonged than people think."

"U.S. Economy Screwed"​

​

 

[rightwinger]

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

You seem to be the one with the petty quibble here.

You accused the guy of not being factually accurate when he in fact was being factually accurate.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. <----Irrefutable fact.

No. An you refer to an irrelevant factoid.

A minority of Democrat HOUSE members voted for the Resolution.

But a majority of Democrat Senators voted for the Resolution.

And you still point to nothing of any value by adding those two numbers together.

Congress Authorized an invasion if the President saw it as necessary

Bush pulled the trigger

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You seem to be the one with the petty quibble here.

You accused the guy of not being factually accurate when he in fact was being factually accurate.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. <----Irrefutable fact.

No. An you refer to an irrelevant factoid.

A minority of Democrat HOUSE members voted for the Resolution.

But a majority of Democrat Senators voted for the Resolution.

And you still point to nothing of any value by adding those two numbers together.

Congress Authorized an invasion if the President saw it as necessary

Bush pulled the trigger

Let's be fair.

Lil' Dumbya might have been having one o' his combat-flashback episodes, when he pulled-the-pin on Iraq!!

 

[expatriate]

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. That was and remains a totally factually accurate statement.

It remains now as before, a completely uninteresting and uninformative factoid. It is of no actual utility to the conversation. We don't decide whether a bill is passed or not by adding House vote tallies to Senate vote tallies.

Add up the total number of democrats in both chambers and compare that number to the number of democrats who voted for the resolution. Is simple math that fucking hard for you???

Not at all. I am just averse to your appalling lack of logic and fascination with useless factoids.

and AGAIN... to say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was a lie, because there was indeed degrees of doubt. * * * *

And again, you are wrong. It cannot be a lie if the person saying it believed it, even if he was wrong. Words still have meaning (except apparently to you).

Was your little baby noggin bounced like a basketball at birth or did you come upon your brain damage later in life?

I am a democrat. I am PROUD of your "little factoid". A majority of my party's members in congress voted against the stupid war. YOUR party was nearly unanimous in its support.

AND... Bush may have believed that Saddam had WMD's... but he certainly could NOT have believed that "THERE WAS NO DOUBT", when the intelligence reports he had at his disposal all contained doubts. To say that HE had no doubts, would not have been a lie. To proclaim that doubt did not exist WAS a lie, because it did... and he KNEW it did, whether he put any credence in the doubts of a myriad of intelligence experts does not make those doubts cease to exist.

You really need to be able to use the english language beyond the level of a six year old if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than your daisy chain right wing butt buddies.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You seem to be the one with the petty quibble here.

You accused the guy of not being factually accurate when he in fact was being factually accurate.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. <----Irrefutable fact.

No. An you refer to an irrelevant factoid.

A minority of Democrat HOUSE members voted for the Resolution.

But a majority of Democrat Senators voted for the Resolution.

And you still point to nothing of any value by adding those two numbers together.

Congress Authorized an invasion if the President saw it as necessary

Bush pulled the trigger

Which President Bush couldn't have done if the Congress hadn't authorized it.

They share responsibility. Just as the Constitution set it all up.

And that's really all there is to it.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I said that a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force. That was and remains a totally factually accurate statement.

It remains now as before, a completely uninteresting and uninformative factoid. It is of no actual utility to the conversation. We don't decide whether a bill is passed or not by adding House vote tallies to Senate vote tallies.



Not at all. I am just averse to your appalling lack of logic and fascination with useless factoids.

and AGAIN... to say that "THERE IS NO DOUBT" was a lie, because there was indeed degrees of doubt. * * * *

And again, you are wrong. It cannot be a lie if the person saying it believed it, even if he was wrong. Words still have meaning (except apparently to you).

Was your little baby noggin bounced like a basketball at birth or did you come upon your brain damage later in life?

I am a democrat. I am PROUD of your "little factoid".
* * * *

It isn't my factoid. It's yours.

You can be proud of your own feces, too. That's not my concern. And I don't share your pride. It remains a completely irrelevant factoid.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one!

I couldn't give a rat's twat if the UN ever said any such thing.

Congress did.

That's all that matters. And they did it before President Bush was elected. The President at the time was Bubba.

 

[BlindBoo]

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one!

I couldn't give a rat's twat if the UN ever said any such thing.

Congress did.

That's all that matters. And they did it before President Bush was elected. The President at the time was Bubba.

First of all it was the Congess that states as one of the reasons to use force was to enforce UNSCR's. So you can bet your filthy fingers if a UNSCR had prescribed regime change in Iraq, the Bush administration would have jumped on it. It didn't.

Show me where and when the US Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq specifically for "Regime Change" during the Clinton years.

 

[Billo_Really]

I couldn't give a rat's twat if the UN ever said any such thing.

Congress did.

That's all that matters. And they did it before President Bush was elected. The President at the time was Bubba.

Then stop using the resolutions as one of your excuses, mother-fucker!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'll give you a $1000 if you can show me one UN resolution on Iraq that contains the words "regime change".

Just one!

I couldn't give a rat's twat if the UN ever said any such thing.

Congress did.

That's all that matters. And they did it before President Bush was elected. The President at the time was Bubba.

First of all it was the Congess that states as one of the reasons to use force was to enforce UNSCR's. So you can bet your filthy fingers if a UNSCR had prescribed regime change in Iraq, the Bush administration would have jumped on it. It didn't.

Show me where and when the US Congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq specifically for "Regime Change" during the Clinton years.

Your first point is indecipherable babble. The UN did not speak of regime change. Nobody said they did. Thus, that fake "topic" is of no interest to me.

I didn't say that the Regime Change Resolution from the Bubba Administration days authorized the use of force. However, it was cited by Congress in the Bush Administration days' Resolution that DID authorize the use of force. You can bet your filthy ass that I wont let you forget that fact.

Do you have any intelligent comments to offer or are you planning on continuing to just toss further irrelevancies into the mix?