Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[toxicmedia]

An on-going "excuse" that many right wingers on here have about supporting the wasteful, horrible and unproductive war ON Iraq (not just "in Iraq") is that many democrats ALSO voted for such a war.....

They're somewhat correct on this and I, for one, have much less respect for those democrats who foolishly went along with the LIES of the murderous Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...... It is salutary for right wingers to tacitly and finally admit that the war was a DISASTER and, to some extent, I don't blame them for trying to share the blame far and wide to ease their own sorry conscience.....

However, there's an ancient axiom that states:

If one tells you a lie.....and you repeat it thinking it to be true, ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?

Democrats largely supported the Iraq war so as not to appear whimpy or unpatriotic. It was a shining example of voting on behalf of their constituents instead of reasoned analysis

 

[NotfooledbyW]

toxicm 11379724

Democrats largely supported the Iraq war so as not to appear whimpy or unpatriotic. It was a shining example of voting on behalf of their constituents instead of reasoned analysis

Why not read Senator Clinton's full speech on why she voted yay instead of generalizing on her political motives.

I will provide the speech here although I doubt you have any interest in reading it:
Go to the 9th or 10th para and start reading with comprehension if you can.

.
October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this t**** dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, 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 way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very 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.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it 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. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.


http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

 

[asterism]

Lots of people who voted for the war did so because of false intelligence, combined with a strong desire to do something to catch those who were responsible for 9/11.

Jr. and Cheney saw an opportunity to paint Saddam with the same brush as OBL, so they directed the anger of the American people towards Saddam.

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lots of people who voted for the war did so because of false intelligence, combined with a strong desire to do something to catch those who were responsible for 9/11.

Jr. and Cheney saw an opportunity to paint Saddam with the same brush as OBL, so they directed the anger of the American people towards Saddam.

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

 

[Slyhunter]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

We should've destroyed N. Korea's Government years ago. However, we don't have the manpower to do everything we "should" do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

We should've destroyed N. Korea's Government years ago. However, we don't have the manpower to do everything we "should" do.

lol, we defeated the Nazis. We couldn't defeat North Korea?

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

I think Bush had grand visions of reshaping the Islamic world. This was going to be his legacy
Getting the guys who did 9-11 was not enough. He had to change the entire region in Americas image. Install democracies in Afganistan and Iraq and then watch as a Democratic domino theory runs through Iran, Syria, Pakistan and Libya

We saw what really happened

Wow, a rare treat. You are obviously the perfect guy to tell us what W thought. Thank you for sharing that with us

It was obvious what the Bush strategy was....he wanted to be the President who reshaped the Islamic world once and for all.

Unfortunately, we do not like the shape of what it became

 

[HUGGY]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

We should've destroyed N. Korea's Government years ago. However, we don't have the manpower to do everything we "should" do.

lol, we defeated the Nazis. We couldn't defeat North Korea?

A lot of nations beat the Germans. We were alone in Korea. The N. Koreans had Chinese and Russian Support. The only way to win outright was to commit ALL our options..that means nuke Moscow long before they were well stocked with the nukes themselves and do the same to China. Short of that we had no chance of beating the well supported N Koreans. Plus it is a whole lot easier to defend one's own land.

 

[HUGGY]

The dems were lied to then beat over the head with those lies.

I remember stories that anyone in Washington that didn't support the "war on terrorism" could be accused of supporting terrorism and arrested. It was Bush's "either you are with us or against us" philosophy.

Does anyone remember the Terrorist Threat Colors that kept turning to red any time there was an election or an important vote coming up in congress.

The Administration admitted finally that the threat level was totally used politically to keep America scared.

Republican used to be a respectable title. For the last 30 plus years it has meant treachery and lies. At almost every possible opportunity they have led the U S into wars for oil and weapons sales and the truth be damned.

When/where did the administration admit that?

Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert

Tom Ridge I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win

I meant to phrase it "Administration Official". Bush as usual and Cheney and Rove never admitted to any of the vile tactics they used to manipulate congress and the population with the misinformation concerning terror threats.

See even the far left will believe any and everything printed in the far left press..

UPDATE: Former Bush administration officials are vehemently denying Ridge's statements.

"We went over backwards repeatedly and with great discipline to make sure politics did not influence any national security and homeland security decisions," former White House chief of staff Andy Card told Politico. "The clear instructions were to make sure politics never influenced anything."

The far left do all they can demonize one man that they started to hate before the 2000 elections..

Is NBC the "far left"?

Ridge I was pushed to raise terror alert - US news - Security NBC News

 

[Faun]

Lots of people who voted for the war did so because of false intelligence, combined with a strong desire to do something to catch those who were responsible for 9/11.

Jr. and Cheney saw an opportunity to paint Saddam with the same brush as OBL, so they directed the anger of the American people towards Saddam.

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

 

[Faun]

The dems were lied to then beat over the head with those lies.

I remember stories that anyone in Washington that didn't support the "war on terrorism" could be accused of supporting terrorism and arrested. It was Bush's "either you are with us or against us" philosophy.

Does anyone remember the Terrorist Threat Colors that kept turning to red any time there was an election or an important vote coming up in congress.

The Administration admitted finally that the threat level was totally used politically to keep America scared.

Republican used to be a respectable title. For the last 30 plus years it has meant treachery and lies. At almost every possible opportunity they have led the U S into wars for oil and weapons sales and the truth be damned.

When/where did the administration admit that?

Tom Ridge: I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert

Tom Ridge I Was Pressured To Raise Terror Alert To Help Bush Win

I meant to phrase it "Administration Official". Bush as usual and Cheney and Rove never admitted to any of the vile tactics they used to manipulate congress and the population with the misinformation concerning terror threats.

See even the far left will believe any and everything printed in the far left press..

UPDATE: Former Bush administration officials are vehemently denying Ridge's statements.

"We went over backwards repeatedly and with great discipline to make sure politics did not influence any national security and homeland security decisions," former White House chief of staff Andy Card told Politico. "The clear instructions were to make sure politics never influenced anything."

The far left do all they can demonize one man that they started to hate before the 2000 elections..

Is NBC the "far left"?

Ridge I was pushed to raise terror alert - US news - Security NBC News

To that luntaic, anyone left of Rush Limbaugh is "far left."

 

[HUGGY]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

The main reason to invade Iraq was to make Cheney's pals from running a company into the ground ..into billionaires.

 

[asterism]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

When we decided it was the proper thing to do. We don't know if things would be better had we enforced the cease-fire against North Korea. We live under the luxury of living in a world without Saddam and that's a good thing.

 

[Wildman]

ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?

demofools, liberscum and YOU !

 

[asterism]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

 

[Faun]

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

Yet all that was found were some unaccounted leftovers from before the first Gulf war scattered around the country.

 

[rdean]

No one thought the president and his minions were such lying fucks who would be so dishonest to trick this country into a war.

Well stated.......I honestly am not sure when the term TREASONOUS should be applied.

Treason is when they try to overthrow the government and help YOUR country's enemies.
Bush was inept and stupid. The Republicans saw a way to make a quick buck. Neither ever thought Iraq was a threat to this country. That's why this wasn't treason.

 

[bgr39]

Lots of people who voted for the war did so because of false intelligence, combined with a strong desire to do something to catch those who were responsible for 9/11.

Jr. and Cheney saw an opportunity to paint Saddam with the same brush as OBL, so they directed the anger of the American people towards Saddam.

They played up fears that Saddam would somehow give WMDs to terrorists

"We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"

..."We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
.
Naa, we will leave that "honor" to Iran!

 

[asterism]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

Yet all that was found were some unaccounted leftovers from before the first Gulf war scattered around the country.

Fully lethal stockpiles that were previously claimed to have been destroyed.

 

[Slyhunter]

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

North Korea has been breaking ceasefire agreements since the 50's. When should we have invaded North Korea?

We should've destroyed N. Korea's Government years ago. However, we don't have the manpower to do everything we "should" do.

lol, we defeated the Nazis. We couldn't defeat North Korea?

South Korea was worried about blow back.