Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[rdean]

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

The UN has no authority to force anything.

The Security Council certainly does.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448

U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Two major agreements-a Status of Forces Agreement stalled on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops and dates for a full withdrawal, and a broader strategic framework agreement-were approved by Iraq's parliament in late November 2008.

So you are saying that US Troops should have stayed in Iraq without immunity?

 

[rdean]

The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.

They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.

Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend

Then you are pro gay marriage and women's rights? Good, for a moment there, I thought...............

 

[kaz]

They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.

Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend

They owe you thanks for brutally maiming and murdering Thousands & Thousands of innocent men, women, and children? God you're sick.

LOL, most people want to fight for freedom, you fight for slavery. You wouldn't understand

Tell that to the Iraqi mother & father who's baby you brutally slaughtered. Pretty sure they'd tell you to go fuck yourself and your 'Freedom' Now go shove another 'Freedom Fry' in your fat face, you ignorant buffoon.

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

LOL, you're waiting for slavery slaw to go with it before you go...

 

[kaz]

The U.S. owes the Iraqi People War Reparations. However, that can never absolve the U.S. from its horrific crimes against humanity in Iraq. Period, end of story.

They owe us thanks and compensation for freeing them. It wasn't in our interest to do it. It's not our job or in our interest to police the world.

Then I'm the guy who wants the American people to be free, and you relish slavery and beg for more, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend

Then you are pro gay marriage and women's rights? Good, for a moment there, I thought...............

So you like your new bong I take it?

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

The UN has no authority to force anything.

The Security Council certainly does.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448

U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Two major agreements-a Status of Forces Agreement stalled on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops and dates for a full withdrawal, and a broader strategic framework agreement-were approved by Iraq's parliament in late November 2008.

So you are saying that US Troops should have stayed in Iraq without immunity?

Ummmmmm, nope. I'm saying the UN force President Bush to negotiate a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008 or else withdraw all the troop.

 

[paulitician]

The ugly reality is, there should have been Nuremberg-type trials for the U.S. and those who perpetrated one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history. Millions of Iraqis have been brutally slaughtered as a result the U.S. invasion. And that includes Thousands & Thousands of children.

Horrifying war crimes were committed by the U.S. There should have been prosecutions. Americans should feel very fortunate their Government owns the international justice system. Otherwise, many of their leaders would be behind bars.

 

[TooTall]

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

The POTUS and his Administration was merely quoting what a lot of leading Democrats were saying based on intel from US and allied intel agencies. Are these lies?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

[paulitician]

Hey, have another Freedum Fry. Ya greedy fat ass American. Anyone still defending the brutal Iraq War crime, is not a good person.

 

[kaz]

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

 

[kaz]

The ugly reality is, there should have been Nuremberg-type trials for the U.S. and those who perpetrated one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history. Millions of Iraqis have been brutally slaughtered as a result the U.S. invasion. And that includes Thousands & Thousands of children.

Horrifying war crimes were committed by the U.S. There should have been prosecutions. Americans should feel very fortunate their Government owns the international justice system. Otherwise, many of their leaders would be behind bars.

You consider the removal of a guy who used WMDs against his own people and slaughtered hundreds of thousands more into mass graves and started two wars by invading his neighbors to be "one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history?" You're a lunatic

Our "leaders" should be behind bars and we shouldn't have invaded, but not for that reason.

 

[asterism]

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

The UN has no authority to force anything.

The Security Council certainly does.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448

U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Two major agreements-a Status of Forces Agreement stalled on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops and dates for a full withdrawal, and a broader strategic framework agreement-were approved by Iraq's parliament in late November 2008.

The UN can be a forum for a legal framework. It is not the governing authority.

What do you think would have happened if the UN Security Council didn't approve the invasion of Iraq? Oh that's right, they didn't.

The UNSC cannot force anyone to do anything.

 

[paulitician]

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

Uh huh, it's all about the Freeeedum with you dipshits. Brought 'Freedom' to the Iraqis by way of killing thousands & thousands of their children. How bout that Freedom? Nice job greedy fat ass American.

 

[kaz]

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

Uh huh, it's all about the Freeeedum with you dipshits. Brought 'Freedom' to the Iraqis by way of killing thousands & thousands of their children. How bout that Freedom? Nice job greedy fat ass American.

Wow, you keep saying to someone who opposes the invasion the invasion is my fault. That's just rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that stuff? Your local playground?

 

[paulitician]

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

Uh huh, it's all about the Freeeedum with you dipshits. Brought 'Freedom' to the Iraqis by way of killing thousands & thousands of their children. How bout that Freedom? Nice job greedy fat ass American.

Wow, you keep saying to someone who opposes the invasion the invasion is my fault. That's just rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that stuff? Your local playground?

You opposed it, yet still defend it. Are you lying to us, or just yourself? Earlier you boasted about how the Iraqis should thank you for brutally slaughtering thousands of their children in the name of 'Freedom.' Maybe you're just confused. Whatever.

 

[kaz]

I opposed the invasion, stupid bitch

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

Uh huh, it's all about the Freeeedum with you dipshits. Brought 'Freedom' to the Iraqis by way of killing thousands & thousands of their children. How bout that Freedom? Nice job greedy fat ass American.

Wow, you keep saying to someone who opposes the invasion the invasion is my fault. That's just rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that stuff? Your local playground?

You opposed it, yet still defend it. Are you lying to us, or just yourself? Earlier you boasted about how the Iraqis should thank you for brutally slaughtering thousands of their children in the name of 'Freedom.' Maybe you're just confused. Whatever.

Strawman. I never defended the invasion. I'm criticizing you for your hyperbole. If I say a shoplifter isn't a murderer, that isn't defending shoplifting

 

[paulitician]

Just heard they're selling 'Freedum Fries' at your local Walmart deli. Better hurry. Off ya go now dipshit.

Here you are, in love with being a slave guy

Uh huh, it's all about the Freeeedum with you dipshits. Brought 'Freedom' to the Iraqis by way of killing thousands & thousands of their children. How bout that Freedom? Nice job greedy fat ass American.

Wow, you keep saying to someone who opposes the invasion the invasion is my fault. That's just rhetorical genius. How do you come up with that stuff? Your local playground?

You opposed it, yet still defend it. Are you lying to us, or just yourself? Earlier you boasted about how the Iraqis should thank you for brutally slaughtering thousands of their children in the name of 'Freedom.' Maybe you're just confused. Whatever.

Strawman. I never defended the invasion. I'm criticizing you for your hyperbole. If I say a shoplifter isn't a murderer, that isn't defending shoplifting

Yes you did. You boasted about how the Iraqis should thank you for your horrific crime against humanity. Cuz you brought em all that cool Freeeedum shite. No matter how you try to spin it, you are defending it.

 

[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.

The point is irrelevant to the discussion which is that Clinton was a neocon just like HW, W and Obama. He was. He tried to topple the Iraqis militarily and he tried to set up Kurdish autonomy militarily. He nation built directly in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia. He also attacked the Sudan and Afghanistan.

So you tell me what difference it would make to you if we went into the Kurdish region with military personal or we just armed and advised them across the border. Would it make any difference to you? How would it make a difference?

Irrelevant?? You made it relevant by lying. Your lack of credibility is relevant to any discussion you have. That you're so pathological, that you can't have a discussion without lying, is a relevant factor in every discussion with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no military action trigger in 1441 regardless and it cannot be used as a pretext for the invasion even if they found any active WMD programs, which they didn't. Even President Bushes Ambassador to the UN claimed that, but perhaps he was lied to as well.

No military trigger was needed. The UN does not have authority over the US.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

The US is a permanent member of the Security Counsel so of course we can veto any attempt to hold us accountable for the invasion and disastrous occupation.

If the UN has no authority over the US why was the UN able to force President Bush to sign a new SOFA with Iraq before the end of 2008?

The UN has no authority to force anything.

The Security Council certainly does.

http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448

U.S. and coalition forces have been in Iraq since 2003. And while the UN Security Council did not explicitly authorize the invasion, the council did approve the presence of foreign forces in an annually renewed resolution first adopted in October 2003.Because Iraq's government has requested that the Security Council not renew the mandate upon its expiration at the end of 2008, U.S. officials have had to accelerate negotiations on a detailed legal framework for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Two major agreements-a Status of Forces Agreement stalled on the issue of legal immunity for U.S. troops and dates for a full withdrawal, and a broader strategic framework agreement-were approved by Iraq's parliament in late November 2008.

The UN can be a forum for a legal framework. It is not the governing authority.

What do you think would have happened if the UN Security Council didn't approve the invasion of Iraq? Oh that's right, they didn't.

The UNSC cannot force anyone to do anything.

The US has veto power so they couldn't do anything to us for the preemptive invasion. However President Bush soon asked them for help in Iraq as well. They authorized the occupation. But it surely forced President Bush to negotiate a new SOFA with Iraq.

 

[Slyhunter]

arming and advising them means they fight their own battles and put their own lives at risk for their own goals.

 

[Londoner]

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?

Two reasons:

1. The Left initially believed the intelligence findings (which had been heavily manipulated by Chaney's office, which office actually targeted Joe Wilson for exposing their lies).

2. The Clinton Left capitulated with the Right on nearly everything, including social safety nets, financial deregulation and foreign policy.

Clinton's response to the success of the Reagan Revolution was to move the party to the Right. Eisenhower and Nixon made the exact same compromises by capitulating w/the postwar New Deal model: high taxes, government projects and support for demand-side fiscal policies. Nixon created the EPA and Eisenhower supported a top tax rate in the 90 percentile (Ike actually believed in paying for the shit he did)

The OP has nothing to worry about on Iraq. There is no exploitable daylight between Jeb and Hillary on this. Hillary and Bill supported the intervention.

Maybe the war wasn't a disaster. The goal was to create the largest base in history near the world's most important asset. If you don't like the unfortunate bloodshed and the death of over a million innocent Iraqis, than fuel your car with hackie-sacks.