Why are the neocons "blaming" Iraq on the Dems?

[DiamondDave]

.

There are several current threads in which Bush apologists are blaming the Iraq war on the Democrats. Long posts quote Clinton and the Democrats, point the finger at those Democrats who supported Bush's decision (yes, hate to say it, but he was the Commander in Chief, regardless of how hard some are trying to ignore that fact).

Well, wait a minute.

This sure looks like these people are admitting what many of us have been saying: That the Iraq War was a horrific waste of time, lives, limbs, minds, materials and borrowed dollars. Why else would these people be putting so much effort into blaming the Democrats for it? So you're agreeing with the rest of us, right? You're admitting it, right?

Any answers to that?

Well, any straight answers?

.

You don't ask a straight question. So you have no right to try to quantify the nature of ANY answers you get.

Nobody, conservative or neoconservative is trying to "blame" the Deocrats for Iraq. That CLAIM of yours is just dishonest.

INSTEAD, folks are merely correcting the deliberately false impression YOU are trying to foster to the effect that BUSH single-handedly waged the war.

So, just to undercut your cheap ass dishonest propaganda AGAIN:

CONGRESS which consisted of Democrats and Republicans AUTHORIZED the Iraq War.

And nobody other than morons like you, Hac1958, is debating the wisdom of the Iraq War. That's a very different discussion. What HAS been pointed out to you is 9among other things) it was the liberal Democrat Administration of Bill Clinton which got the Act passed by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1998 that made it the public policy of the United States to effect Regime change in Iraq.

And TONS of Democrats assured us THEN and subsequently that Saddam had WMDs.

That was PART of the rational for seeking the regime change law. And it was later part of the rational for the authorization to wage war against Saddam's Iraq.

Denying it won't change it, Hac. The Democrats staked out that position before President Bush ever did and even before 9/11/2001.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization. I don't know how you get from most Democrats being against the war to most Democrats being for it.

Believe he is referring to

H.R. 4655 (105th): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended) -- GovTrack.us

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A majority of the Democrats in the House did vote against the authorization for the Iraq war.

Then stop pretending they didn't, you idiot.

I never said, suggested or implied otherwise you mindless idiot.

 

[DiamondDave]

Too bad the personal insults and name-calling are necessary for you.

The fact remains you refuse to put responsibility with the Commander in Chief.

If he had a (D) after his name, you would be.

.

It amuses me endlessly to watch your propaganda get called out and exposed.

You are entirely disinterested in any kind of honest discussion or debate. Your sole objective is to blame Bush for the Iraq war. Yet you propagandist wannabes can't handle any kind of scrutiny.

Did Bill Clinton (the fellow with the D after his name bear any responsibility for the Iraq Liberation Act? Did Bill Clinton with the D after his name bear any responsibility for his repeated claims that Saddam had WMDs?

Or can you only point your finger when the person you want to accuse has the R after his name?

;

I hate the Iraq war. I didn't want it. The Commander in Chief, party affiliation irrelevant, put us there. It was ultimately his call, Congressional approval or not. He wanted it, he asked for it, he got it. And his apologists refuse to admit that. If Clinton had done it, same thing. I don't give a crap about parties, since I give politicians zero credibility.

That's all I'm saying. Play all the games you want.

.

I would have praised Clinton for going and finishing the job the minute a cease fire violation came across.. unfortunately for him and us as a country, he did not....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You don't ask a straight question. So you have no right to try to quantify the nature of ANY answers you get.

Nobody, conservative or neoconservative is trying to "blame" the Deocrats for Iraq. That CLAIM of yours is just dishonest.

INSTEAD, folks are merely correcting the deliberately false impression YOU are trying to foster to the effect that BUSH single-handedly waged the war.

So, just to undercut your cheap ass dishonest propaganda AGAIN:

CONGRESS which consisted of Democrats and Republicans AUTHORIZED the Iraq War.

And nobody other than morons like you, Hac1958, is debating the wisdom of the Iraq War. That's a very different discussion. What HAS been pointed out to you is 9among other things) it was the liberal Democrat Administration of Bill Clinton which got the Act passed by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1998 that made it the public policy of the United States to effect Regime change in Iraq.

And TONS of Democrats assured us THEN and subsequently that Saddam had WMDs.

That was PART of the rational for seeking the regime change law. And it was later part of the rational for the authorization to wage war against Saddam's Iraq.

Denying it won't change it, Hac. The Democrats staked out that position before President Bush ever did and even before 9/11/2001.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization. I don't know how you get from most Democrats being against the war to most Democrats being for it.

Believe he is referring to

H.R. 4655 (105th): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended) -- GovTrack.us

Congratulations for being able (unlike NYcarbineer) to follow the actual conversation.

DEMOCRATS voted FOR the Iraq Liberation Act. A DEMOCRAT President signed it into law. THAT Law cited Saddam's WMDs as part of the very reason for passing it.

THAT law made it the public policy of the United States to seek regime change in Iraq.

But certain present day liberal assholes like to pretend that the claim that Saddam had WMDs was just a Bush lie.

So, when a Democrat says it, it's all good. Even when they say it as a justification for a lwa that calls upon the US to help "liberate" Iraq, it's all good.

But when a REPUBLICAN says it, it's a lie.

And assholes like NYCarbineer can't even keep track of the present contention in a couple of easily understood posts. How the fuck could he possibly handle the mess that is international affairs?

 

[Wicked Jester]

A majority of the Democrats in the House did vote against the authorization for the Iraq war. QUOTE]

Then stop pretending they didn't, you idiot.

And why do you loons, after bashing Bush for going in, too include ridiculously accusing him of war crimes, continue to support the likes of Hillary, who you all are cackling on about how great she is, or Kerry, who is now a high ranking member of the current administration?

Ya' see, the hypocrisy of you loons is beyond laughable, it's fucking bizarre.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't ask a straight question. So you have no right to try to quantify the nature of ANY answers you get.

Nobody, conservative or neoconservative is trying to "blame" the Deocrats for Iraq. That CLAIM of yours is just dishonest.

INSTEAD, folks are merely correcting the deliberately false impression YOU are trying to foster to the effect that BUSH single-handedly waged the war.

So, just to undercut your cheap ass dishonest propaganda AGAIN:

CONGRESS which consisted of Democrats and Republicans AUTHORIZED the Iraq War.

And nobody other than morons like you, Hac1958, is debating the wisdom of the Iraq War. That's a very different discussion. What HAS been pointed out to you is 9among other things) it was the liberal Democrat Administration of Bill Clinton which got the Act passed by the Democrat controlled Congress in 1998 that made it the public policy of the United States to effect Regime change in Iraq.

And TONS of Democrats assured us THEN and subsequently that Saddam had WMDs.

That was PART of the rational for seeking the regime change law. And it was later part of the rational for the authorization to wage war against Saddam's Iraq.

Denying it won't change it, Hac. The Democrats staked out that position before President Bush ever did and even before 9/11/2001.

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization. I don't know how you get from most Democrats being against the war to most Democrats being for it.

Well, show me where I said most Democrats were for the war.

Then we can talk.

Everything in your previous post is designed to create that impression.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A majority of the Democrats in the House did vote against the authorization for the Iraq war. QUOTE]

Then stop pretending they didn't, you idiot.

And why do you loons, after bashing Bush for going in, too include ridiculously accusing him of war crimes, continue to support the likes of Hillary, who you all are cackling on about how great she is, or Kerry, who is now a high ranking member of the current administration?

Ya' see, the hypocrisy of you loons is beyond laughable, it's fucking bizarre.

I have never voted for Hillary Clinton and in fact said I never would, and being from NY, I had multiple chances.

Hillary Clinton wasn't president, and to a lesser extent neither was John Kerry, because they supported the war in Iraq.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the authorization. I don't know how you get from most Democrats being against the war to most Democrats being for it.

Well, show me where I said most Democrats were for the war.

Then we can talk.

Everything in your previous post is designed to create that impression.

Nope.

That's just your boundless ignorance talking for you.

That you can not track the far from subtle difference between noting Democrat support for the 1998 law and the claim I never made (but in fact corrected) about the alleged "majority" Democrat support of the Iraq War Resolution is not my doing.

It is merely a product of your stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, show me where I said most Democrats were for the war.

Then we can talk.

Everything in your previous post is designed to create that impression.

Nope.

That's just your boundless ignorance talking for you.

That you can not track the far from subtle difference between noting Democrat support for the 1998 law and the claim I never made (but in fact corrected) about the alleged "majority" Democrat support of the Iraq War Resolution is not my doing.

It is merely a product of your stupidity.

We did not go to war on a 1998 resolution. We did not go to war under a Democratic president. We did not go to war with majority support from the Democratic Party in Congress.

History, and mathematics, prove you wrong.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Everything in your previous post is designed to create that impression.

Nope.

That's just your boundless ignorance talking for you.

That you can not track the far from subtle difference between noting Democrat support for the 1998 law and the claim I never made (but in fact corrected) about the alleged "majority" Democrat support of the Iraq War Resolution is not my doing.

It is merely a product of your stupidity.

We did not go to war on a 1998 resolution. We did not go to war under a Democratic president. We did not go to war with majority support from the Democratic Party in Congress.

History, and mathematics, prove you wrong.

Notice how you simpleton liberals like to argue against strawmen?

I have never claimed that we went to war on the 1998 Resolution, but -- hold on to your turban -- that law WAS used as one of the justifications for the Iraqi War!

I also did not claim that we went to war UNDER a Democrat President. Clinton sent a cruise missile up a camel's ass to cover up his own misbehavior. Nobody would accuse him of using military might for a legitimate purpose.

And we certainly DID got to war with a majority of Democratic SENATORS voting for it.

History and math have not proved me right or wrong. But reality proves you have your head up your ass.

 

[Billo_Really]

Excuse me??.. the 'blame' game comes strictly from the DEMs.. Booooosssshhh Liiiiiieeeeddddd, and all the other BDS stuff about Iraq... what is commonly brought out by ones on the other side is that this was not some 'conspiracy' by Bush and that the Dems, including the preceding president believed and had the very same intel and the thoughts behind Saddam were widly held by not only those on BOTH sides of the aisle but also by our allies and backed up by the vast majority of intel that was available

That's not true! That's not true at all. It's very obvious that the intel was politicized to fit the policy and there was enough of it to indicate there is no way you can conclude with any certainty, he has WMD's.

Chalabi-connected Iraqi defector "Curveball"—a convicted sex offender and low-level engineer who became the sole source for much of the case that Saddam had WMD, particularly mobile weapons labs—enters Munich seeking a German visa. German intel officers describe his information as highly suspect. US agents never debrief Curveball or perform background check. Nonetheless, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and CIA will pass raw intel on to senior policymakers. [Date the public knew: 11/20/05]

So you can't say the intel agencies sincerely "believe", when they were cherry-picking information to make the case for war. Bush even said so in his first security meeting.

Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

Bush came into office wanting to take Hussein out. And he wanted people to go out and find evidence to make it happen.

This is Bush's war and his legacy.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ok then
Both sides blame someone else. It is the way it works now.. (Bush, GOP, Libs, CLinton, Libya.. soemone got to be blamed)
It was a bi-partisan war, therfore, both sides are to blame

Some people are more responsible than others.

Bush takes the lions share of the blame.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ok then
Both sides blame someone else. It is the way it works now.. (Bush, GOP, Libs, CLinton, Libya.. soemone got to be blamed)
It was a bi-partisan war, therfore, both sides are to blame

Some people are more responsible than others.

Bush takes the lions share of the blame.

Actually, Saddam does.

Well, he would if he hadn't been dispatched.

Are you equally as quick to assign the "lion's share of the blame" for the sequester to Obama, by the way?

 

[Billo_Really]

No.. I am not agreeing it was a disaster... what was a disaster is that we were not allowed to finish the job the first time, leading to the second which was so goddamn politicized that it hindered the effort

Victory? Yes... Magnificent? No

Not a disaster? It cost us over 4000 American lives; over 1 million Iraqi lives; over 1 trillion dollars; our reputation around the world; our American heritage; our economy; and when you consider everything we had to sacrifice over this war, we should've gotten something pretty sizable in return. But we got nothing! We spent over a trillion dollars with no direct benefit for average American's.

How the fuck can you say it wasn't a disaster? Do you hate this country? Do think it's okay to make us suffer, just so you can go remove one man from office in some other god-damn country on the other side of the planet?

 

[Billo_Really]

Democrat support for taking out Saddam started well before Bush was Commander in Chief. In fact, Clinton was Commander in Chief. Neocons are not blaming Democrats for Iraq; rather, they are calling bullshit on Democrats and their position on Iraq and trying to blame everything bad about Iraq on Bush.

Regime change in Iraq started with the neocons in their PNAC letter to Clinton in 1998.

 

[Billo_Really]

Left wingers have been whining about Iraq for years. That's the only blame that's going on. The truth is that Democrats authorized president Bush to use combat Troops and then they sat back and pretended to be bystanders or worse, members of the jihad.

The voted for authorization, but they weren't the ones making up the lies.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Left wingers have been whining about Iraq for years. That's the only blame that's going on. The truth is that Democrats authorized president Bush to use combat Troops and then they sat back and pretended to be bystanders or worse, members of the jihad.

The voted for authorization, but they weren't the ones making up the lies.

What lies?

 

[Seawytch]

Left wingers have been whining about Iraq for years. That's the only blame that's going on. The truth is that Democrats authorized president Bush to use combat Troops and then they sat back and pretended to be bystanders or worse, members of the jihad.

The voted for authorization, but they weren't the ones making up the lies.

They swallowed them whole, however. Perhaps if we'd had a Benghazi-like investigation, we'd have not invaded Iraq. Where were those rabid investigators when there was actually something to investigate?

 

[Billo_Really]

Firstly, Iraq was/is not a 'disaster'. And Dave is right - it was a bi-partisan decision. In my own view, we should have dealt with Saddam the first time around instead of pandering to international cowardice.

The world is a better place without Saddam - ask the Iraqis. Many of whom will tell you their country - for all its problems - is better now than then... the Kurds are particularly better off. At least no one's using WMD on them now.

No, Iraqis do not say that. In fact, they say things are much worse now, than when Hussein was in power.

Here's a sample of what Iraqis are actually saying about what we did to their country...

An impassioned young woman from the middle of the lecture hall spoke up. It was obviously not easy for her. “It is not,” she said, “about lack of water and electricity [something I had mentioned]. You have destroyed everything. You have destroyed our country. You have destroyed what is inside of us! You have destroyed our ancient civilization. You have taken our smiles from us. You have taken our dreams!”

Someone asked, “Why did you this? What did we do to you that you would do this to us?”

“Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here,” said another. “They destroyed the childhood. You don’t destroy everything and then say ‘We’re sorry.’ “You don’t commit crimes and then say ‘Sorry.’”

“To bomb us and then send teams to do investigations on the effects of the bombs…No, it will not be forgotten. It is not written on our hearts, it is carved in our hearts.”

 

[Billo_Really]

They swallowed them whole, however. Perhaps if we'd had a Benghazi-like investigation, we'd have not invaded Iraq. Where were those rabid investigators when there was actually something to investigate?

So if someone buys the lie, the liar gets to go free?