Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[nat4900]

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.

Of course, you're correct.....My anger toward a group of greedy, heartless, murderous neocons got the best of me...My apologies.

 

[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.

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

Correction, turns out he hid it all in Syria.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

More lies.

 

[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?

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.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

 

[kaz]

Learn history and stop treating the Democratic party talking points as your Bible

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their own country. Our troops were in Iraq by force and put their by Bill Slick Willy Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, ignorance and stupidity beyond belief. As I said, buy a history book.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'd like to say they were innocent dupes of bad intelligence

But in truth, they were cowards
In the post 9-11 hysteria, they were unwilling to take the tag of "soft on terrorism" and Republicans were chomping at the bit to use it. After the attacks, Bush was given a 9-11 card to do anything necessary in the war on terror....to oppose what he wanted was unpatriotic

It was the last time Bush used his 9-11 Card

In a post 9-11 hysteria, Democrats were chomping at the bit to throw Bush and Cheney under the bus. Here is the evidence. Guantanimo is still open, the NSA is collecting every email and phone call, consistent with the Patriot Act. Wake up

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush had 85% approval and was free to do whatever he wanted in the name of fighting terrorism

We never realized how much he would abuse our trust.....two wars, Abu Gharib, torture, Gitmo, spying on Americans.......Iraq

Multiple wars are still being fought, GITMO open, and Americans spied on. If these were so bad in your eyes, you'd be calling out those that continue the practice; not Bush.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Learn history and stop treating the Democratic party talking points as your Bible

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to say they were innocent dupes of bad intelligence

But in truth, they were cowards
In the post 9-11 hysteria, they were unwilling to take the tag of "soft on terrorism" and Republicans were chomping at the bit to use it. After the attacks, Bush was given a 9-11 card to do anything necessary in the war on terror....to oppose what he wanted was unpatriotic

It was the last time Bush used his 9-11 Card

In a post 9-11 hysteria, Democrats were chomping at the bit to throw Bush and Cheney under the bus. Here is the evidence. Guantanimo is still open, the NSA is collecting every email and phone call, consistent with the Patriot Act. Wake up

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush had 85% approval and was free to do whatever he wanted in the name of fighting terrorism

We never realized how much he would abuse our trust.....two wars, Abu Gharib, torture, Gitmo, spying on Americans.......Iraq

Multiple wars are still being fought, GITMO open, and Americans spied on. If these were so bad in your eyes, you'd be calling out those that continue the practice; not Bush.

The GOP blocked Obama from closing Gitmo.

 

[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.

Correction, turns out he hid it all in Syria.

Ahh, the ever moronic, Bush stupidly invaded the wrong country, idiocy.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I'd like to say they were innocent dupes of bad intelligence

But in truth, they were cowards
In the post 9-11 hysteria, they were unwilling to take the tag of "soft on terrorism" and Republicans were chomping at the bit to use it. After the attacks, Bush was given a 9-11 card to do anything necessary in the war on terror....to oppose what he wanted was unpatriotic

It was the last time Bush used his 9-11 Card

In a post 9-11 hysteria, Democrats were chomping at the bit to throw Bush and Cheney under the bus. Here is the evidence. Guantanimo is still open, the NSA is collecting every email and phone call, consistent with the Patriot Act. Wake up

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush had 85% approval and was free to do whatever he wanted in the name of fighting terrorism

We never realized how much he would abuse our trust.....two wars, Abu Gharib, torture, Gitmo, spying on Americans.......Iraq

Multiple wars are still being fought, GITMO open, and Americans spied on. If these were so bad in your eyes, you'd be calling out those that continue the practice; not Bush.

The GOP blocked Obama from closing Gitmo.

When and How? If confirmed that the GOP blocked it, why not an Executive Order towards closing GITMO or limiting its operations?

 

[kaz]

kaz 11378965

He finished Iraq, expanded Nation building in Iraq

What are you trying to say?​

You realize you cut out all but a couple words of the post then asked me what I was saying?

But that appears to be a snipped from the Obama is a neocon discussion. Assuming so, I was asked about Obama and using the military to install governments. Iraq and Afghanistan are two cases that he inherited a plan to install governments and he finished one (Iraq) and expanded the other (Afghanistan). He also toppled the Libyan government for the rebel there, and tried to do the same in Syria. He also saber rattled in Egypt in support of regime change.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me five times, I'm obviously a liberal...

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Of course, you're correct.....My anger toward a group of greedy, heartless, murderous neocons got the best of me...My apologies.

I had no idea Hillary was a heartless neo-con.

 

[kaz]

I'd like to say they were innocent dupes of bad intelligence

But in truth, they were cowards
In the post 9-11 hysteria, they were unwilling to take the tag of "soft on terrorism" and Republicans were chomping at the bit to use it. After the attacks, Bush was given a 9-11 card to do anything necessary in the war on terror....to oppose what he wanted was unpatriotic

It was the last time Bush used his 9-11 Card

In a post 9-11 hysteria, Democrats were chomping at the bit to throw Bush and Cheney under the bus. Here is the evidence. Guantanimo is still open, the NSA is collecting every email and phone call, consistent with the Patriot Act. Wake up

Are you fucking nuts?

Bush had 85% approval and was free to do whatever he wanted in the name of fighting terrorism

We never realized how much he would abuse our trust.....two wars, Abu Gharib, torture, Gitmo, spying on Americans.......Iraq

Multiple wars are still being fought, GITMO open, and Americans spied on. If these were so bad in your eyes, you'd be calling out those that continue the practice; not Bush.

The GOP blocked Obama from closing Gitmo.

When and How? If confirmed that the GOP blocked it, why not an Executive Order towards closing GITMO or limiting its operations?

Because Obama never, ever would use an executive order to circumvent the Constitution or the law.



That was funny...

 

[kaz]

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.

Of course, you're correct.....My anger toward a group of greedy, heartless, murderous neocons got the best of me...My apologies.

I had no idea Hillary was a heartless neo-con.

You didn't? Clearly she is

 

[kaz]

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

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

 

[asterism]

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.

More lies.

The truth really hurts doesn't it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...uments-on-chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq.html

 

[kaz]

Learn history and stop treating the Democratic party talking points as your Bible

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties

 

[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.

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.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

 

[Faun]

Learn history and stop treating the Democratic party talking points as your Bible

Excuse me nitwit, but how is my sarcasm to YOUR assumption that the Iraq war was Clinton's doing.....MY repeating DNC's talking points....Really, Kaz go take a fucking nap...or find another hobby.

You didn't know that Clinton invaded Iraq? Seriously? How old are you?

There were US troops occupying a bunch of Iraq when W took over the Presidency. The Iraqis were not allowed to fly over most of their country. They were put there by force by Clinton, Sparky.

Liberalism, stupidity beyond belief

Where, exactly?

The US had a major bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998, we had no fly zones over a majority of the country, and we broke off the Kurdish north from control by Hussein and the Iraqi government, Sparky. W took over, then Obama took over. It was again a cluster by both parties

You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...

 

[Faun]

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.

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.