Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 11382281

rst of all, can you learn to use quotes?

I am using quotes. Knock off the diversion.

 

[Faun]

I'd guess those who voted for the war did so for one of three reasons:

1. They figured they were fucked politically if they didn't
2. They believed the tragically flawed and incorrect information
3. Some combination therein

Party affiliation irrelevant.

.

The party to blame is the party of George Bush. He, and his administration, were the ones banging the war drum to invade Iraq. Had he not been so gung-ho on leading us to war, there never would have been that 9 year long miserable war. Congress, though they foolishly gave Bush the ability to launch a war if he alone "determined" Iraq was a threat to us, had little interest of invading Iraq.

The Iraq war is Bush's folly. It will always be his.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd guess those who voted for the war did so for one of three reasons:

1. They figured they were fucked politically if they didn't
2. They believed the tragically flawed and incorrect information
3. Some combination therein

Party affiliation irrelevant.

.

The party to blame is the party of George Bush. He, and his administration, were the ones banging the war drum to invade Iraq. Had he not been so gung-ho on leading us to war, there never would have been that 9 year long miserable war. Congress, though they foolishly gave Bush the ability to launch a war if he alone "determined" Iraq was a threat to us, had little interest of invading Iraq.

The Iraq war is Bush's folly. It will always be his.

Agreed.

.

 

[Slyhunter]

I'd guess those who voted for the war did so for one of three reasons:

1. They figured they were fucked politically if they didn't
2. They believed the tragically flawed and incorrect information
3. Some combination therein

Party affiliation irrelevant.

.

The party to blame is the party of George Bush. He, and his administration, were the ones banging the war drum to invade Iraq. Had he not been so gung-ho on leading us to war, there never would have been that 9 year long miserable war. Congress, though they foolishly gave Bush the ability to launch a war if he alone "determined" Iraq was a threat to us, had little interest of invading Iraq.

The Iraq war is Bush's folly. It will always be his.

Bush was a wimp he should've went in a lot sooner.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

Give us a break with your rewriting history.

. Following the 1991 uprising of Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south against Saddam Hussein, thePeshmerga succeeded in pushing out the main Iraqi forces from the north. Despite significant casualties and the crisis ofrefugees in bordering regions of Iran and Turkey, the Peshmerga success and establishment of the northern no-fly zonefollowing the First Gulf War in 1991 created the basis for Kurdish self-rule and facilitated the return of Kurdish refugees. As Kurds continued to fight government troops, Iraqi forces finally left Kurdistan in October 1991, leaving the region with de facto autonomy.

Iraqi Kurdistan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Peshmerga fought their own war to obtain self rule. The NFZ preserved it.

A NFZ is not an invasion in any sense of the invasion of Poland by the Germans and the invasion of Iraq ordered by GW a Bush.

 

[Faun]

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

Give us a break with your rewriting history.

. Following the 1991 uprising of Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south against Saddam Hussein, thePeshmerga succeeded in pushing out the main Iraqi forces from the north. Despite significant casualties and the crisis ofrefugees in bordering regions of Iran and Turkey, the Peshmerga success and establishment of the northern no-fly zonefollowing the First Gulf War in 1991 created the basis for Kurdish self-rule and facilitated the return of Kurdish refugees. As Kurds continued to fight government troops, Iraqi forces finally left Kurdistan in October 1991, leaving the region with de facto autonomy.

Iraqi Kurdistan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Peshmerga fought their own war to obtain self rule. The NFZ preserved it.

A NFZ is not an invasion in any sense of the invasion of Poland by the Germans and the invasion of Iraq ordered by GW a Bush.

It was still an invasion. What it certainly was not was an "occupation," which is what that idiot thinks it was.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

aster 11380670

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.

Why go back to 1998 for excusing an dumb invasion committed in 2003?

In 2003 SH was not connected in any way to the terrorists that killed 3000 souls on September 11 2001 which was the impetus behind the invasion.

In 2003 SH was not undermining the premise for the UN Security Council. Bush and Blair failed to acquire enough promised UNSC votes to authorize war early in March 2003 so they had to pull their draft Resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of UNSC Resolution 1441.

In fact SH was in such a cooperative mood after the 9/11 attacks under Bush's watch that in December 2002 the dictator offered to let the CIA FBI and US Military come into Iraq with UN Inspectors but the Bush White House did not test the offer. The WH rejected that offer by saying let the UN handle it.

SH messing with humanitarian aid was not a US national security issue that would even in part justify the deadly dumb and disastrous invasion that was ordered to go by no one other than GW Bush.

The IL A had nothing to do with a US ground invasion into Iraq. Why bring it up?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

From HRC's speech. So many cannot be bothered to read her explanation for her AUMF Iraq vote.

"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."

At the time - the context was that Saddam Hussein had not allowed the inspectors in four four years.

 

[kaz]

You tacitly confess you don't know the difference between "occupy" and "invade" yet here you are pretending like there's no difference between the two.

Nnnnnnnnnoooooooooooo, I"m saying we did both

Your ignorance aside, you're also arguing facts not in evidence ... post a link proving Clinton put "boots on the ground" in Iraq...

Not interested in finding links to show you factual data. You do love the anal word parsing exercises, but the point is that Clinton was a neocon. The question I was asked (the other examples I wasn't challenged on) was about Iraq. I pointed out that the US split off the Kurd region, we did. And we had a no fly zone over the south to help the Shiites revolt, we did. W didn't invade Iraq, Clinton did. W just escalated it.

You got some content or you just want to keep arguing in the spirit of Slick what the definition of is, is?

 

[kaz]

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

Give us a break with your rewriting history.

If liberals weren't zombies even they would be laughing at you...

 

[kaz]

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

Give us a break with your rewriting history.

. Following the 1991 uprising of Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south against Saddam Hussein, thePeshmerga succeeded in pushing out the main Iraqi forces from the north. Despite significant casualties and the crisis ofrefugees in bordering regions of Iran and Turkey, the Peshmerga success and establishment of the northern no-fly zonefollowing the First Gulf War in 1991 created the basis for Kurdish self-rule and facilitated the return of Kurdish refugees. As Kurds continued to fight government troops, Iraqi forces finally left Kurdistan in October 1991, leaving the region with de facto autonomy.

Iraqi Kurdistan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Peshmerga fought their own war to obtain self rule. The NFZ preserved it.

A NFZ is not an invasion in any sense of the invasion of Poland by the Germans and the invasion of Iraq ordered by GW a Bush.

It was still an invasion. What it certainly was not was an "occupation," which is what that idiot thinks it was.

If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion

 

[TooTall]

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.

Saddam was really a harmless old fella who wouldn't harm a flea.

 

[idb]

How could anyone have anticipated that the POTUS and his administration could be capable of such bald-faced lies?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 11385474

If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion

Can't read, can you? The NFZs were the result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Now that was an invasion. Bush 41 liberated Kuwait and knew when to stop. The Kurds liberated themselves and Iraq's army was decimated - Bush43's dumb dumb invasion was a ground invasion and a regime change and an occupation. There were no US ground troops in the Kurds war against the Baathist regime. Operating a NFZ over a country that was just defeated after violating international law cannot be called by anyone with a reasonable mind - an "invasion" . It is an absurd argument on your part.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 11385474

Not interested in finding links to show you factual data.

There are no links to your manufactured facts. It there were you would not hesitate to provide one.

 

[Faun]

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

Give us a break with your rewriting history.

. Following the 1991 uprising of Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south against Saddam Hussein, thePeshmerga succeeded in pushing out the main Iraqi forces from the north. Despite significant casualties and the crisis ofrefugees in bordering regions of Iran and Turkey, the Peshmerga success and establishment of the northern no-fly zonefollowing the First Gulf War in 1991 created the basis for Kurdish self-rule and facilitated the return of Kurdish refugees. As Kurds continued to fight government troops, Iraqi forces finally left Kurdistan in October 1991, leaving the region with de facto autonomy.

Iraqi Kurdistan - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Peshmerga fought their own war to obtain self rule. The NFZ preserved it.

A NFZ is not an invasion in any sense of the invasion of Poland by the Germans and the invasion of Iraq ordered by GW a Bush.

It was still an invasion. What it certainly was not was an "occupation," which is what that idiot thinks it was.

If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion

So stop with the conjecture then and prove it. Post a link to an article stating Clinton put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 11382064

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

Those like kaz who think Democrats voted for an automatic invasion of Iraq have no way to explain why or how UNSC Resolution ever happened. They have no way to explain why Bush signed the US onto it. They have no way to explain how Saddam Hussein was not a big enough threat needing immediate regime change in November 2002 when Bush agreed with 1441 and there were no UN inspectors in Iraq, but Iraq became a threat requiring ground invasion and regime change after the UN inspectors were in Iraq for nearly four months reaching what was referred to as proactive cooperation from Iraq by the same inspectors that were allowed in as a result of 1441 with Bush's utmost blessing.

UN Resolution 1441 is a nightmare for the kaz's of this world.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

aster 11383515

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

If you are going to quote Dr Blix you need to quote all of what Dr Blix said including finding no evidence of WMD and defining Iraq later as cooperating proactively. And finding none of Bush's so called intelligence on active or hidden WMD to be credible.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

He won by a few percentage points, simpleton

US President's are elected by electoral votes.

2008 results are clearly 2:1

Electoral Vote* Winner: 365 Main Opponent: 173 Total/Majority: 538/270

Simpletons should not call non-simpletons simpletons as you simply did without checking the facts.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Like I said..............the only reason that anyone voted for the Iraq war was because they believed the lies put forth by Jr.'s administration and thought that Saddam had WMD's.

Interestingly enough, when Jeb was asked a question about if he would have supported the Iraq war with the information we have now, he couldn't give a decent answer.

He's being blasted by both the Democrats AND Republicans for what he said, because lots of people think we should never have gone in to Iraq, and with the things we now know about the past admin, if those facts had been known, we'd never have gone in.