Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[BlindBoo]

We control the SC votes against Israel with our veto. Russia controls the SC votes against Syria with their veto. Do you deny this control?

You didn't say we have veto power or control over some situations, you said we control the UN. Buy a dictionary

Well let me quote me then.

"The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did."

Any of them could have vetoed 1441, but no one, including W could compel them to pass it. If we controlled the UN, W could have compelled them to pass it. He couldn't.

Seriously, BUY A DICTIONARY. Being able to stop something isn't "control." I don't control your car if I siphon the gas out of your car. You can't drive it, but I don't control the car. You are seriously not a bright guy.

In fact, all five voted for it

By vetoing most all the proposed resolutions against Israel we control that issue in UN.

So you seriously don't know what the word "control" means and even being on the Internet you're not going to look it up?

Again, to control something is to compel it to do your will, it is not to just be able to stop it.

Seriously? You took that as a claim that President Bush had dictatorial control over the UN and demand I prove it?

 

[kaz]

You didn't say we have veto power or control over some situations, you said we control the UN. Buy a dictionary

Well let me quote me then.

"The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did."

Any of them could have vetoed 1441, but no one, including W could compel them to pass it. If we controlled the UN, W could have compelled them to pass it. He couldn't.

Seriously, BUY A DICTIONARY. Being able to stop something isn't "control." I don't control your car if I siphon the gas out of your car. You can't drive it, but I don't control the car. You are seriously not a bright guy.

In fact, all five voted for it

By vetoing most all the proposed resolutions against Israel we control that issue in UN.

So you seriously don't know what the word "control" means and even being on the Internet you're not going to look it up?

Again, to control something is to compel it to do your will, it is not to just be able to stop it.

Seriously? You took that as a claim that President Bush had dictatorial control over the UN and demand I prove it?

You said W can "control" the UN. That means make it do what he wants them to do, which clearly he cannot do. I'm not sure where you draw this "dictatorial control" distinction, but you don't know what the word "control" means. Government schools have badly failed you

 

[Kosh]

You didn't say we have veto power or control over some situations, you said we control the UN. Buy a dictionary

Well let me quote me then.

"The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did."

Any of them could have vetoed 1441, but no one, including W could compel them to pass it. If we controlled the UN, W could have compelled them to pass it. He couldn't.

Seriously, BUY A DICTIONARY. Being able to stop something isn't "control." I don't control your car if I siphon the gas out of your car. You can't drive it, but I don't control the car. You are seriously not a bright guy.

In fact, all five voted for it

By vetoing most all the proposed resolutions against Israel we control that issue in UN.

So you seriously don't know what the word "control" means and even being on the Internet you're not going to look it up?

Again, to control something is to compel it to do your will, it is not to just be able to stop it.

Seriously? You took that as a claim that President Bush had dictatorial control over the UN and demand I prove it?

Yes that is what you were supporting! Just own it and know that you were wrong! Like all far left drones..

Now admit that Bush had zero control over the UN..

 

[BlindBoo]

You said W can "control" the UN.

He could. He could stop most any SC resolution he wanted to. Are you saying he couldn't? Are you saying that any of the five permanent member can't control the dialog?

 

[kaz]

You said W can "control" the UN.

He could. He could stop most any SC resolution he wanted to.

Buy a dictionary and look up the definition of "control." Seriously. Vetoing a resolution isn't controlling the UN. Being able to compel them to pass a resolution is controlling them.

Are you saying he couldn't? Are you saying that any of the five permanent member can't control the dialog?

Nope. They can veto resolutions, but they can't "control the dialog."

 

[eagle1462010]

We paid for the rope.............

Hmmmmm no we elected a retard for POTUS.

Aren't you tired of same freaking tune??? Yeah you hate Obama and your hate blinds you from any rational response to the topic.....

Why don't you type "I hate Obama" and copy and paste that to all your responses to others' posts?

Which would counter your I LOVE OBAMA and he can do no wrong attitude....................

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq.............now did he................he stalled until most of the country was taken to finally act....................so..............those places paid for in blood were all allowed to be taken by the scum that is there now..............aka For nothing..............as a POTUS didn't have the nuts to stay the course and make sure this didn't happen...........

That's on your lover Obama.

 

[nat4900]

Which would counter your I LOVE OBAMA and he can do no wrong attitude....................

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq.............now did he................he stalled until most of the country was taken to finally act....................so..............those places paid for in blood were all allowed to be taken by the scum that is there now..............aka For nothing..............as a POTUS didn't have the nuts to stay the course and make sure this didn't happen...........

That's on your lover Obama.

Keep proving to me and all others on here that you're a shallow idiot.

First, I do not "love" Obama

Second, what's this about Obama not having the balls......it doesn't take much from a president to send someone else's kids to die in a foreign land......Just ask GWB
(and it took some balls to send some of our own to kill off OBL, don't you think that had THAT turned to be a failure you'd be the happiest R-W idiot around?)

Third, as Jeb Bush found out, ISIS was in the making as soon as GWB allowed for a screwed up Maliki to rob Iraq blind.

 

[eagle1462010]

Which would counter your I LOVE OBAMA and he can do no wrong attitude....................

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq.............now did he................he stalled until most of the country was taken to finally act....................so..............those places paid for in blood were all allowed to be taken by the scum that is there now..............aka For nothing..............as a POTUS didn't have the nuts to stay the course and make sure this didn't happen...........

That's on your lover Obama.

Keep proving to me and all others on here that you're a shallow idiot.

First, I do not "love" Obama

Second, what's this about Obama not having the balls......it doesn't take much from a president to send someone else's kids to die in a foreign land......Just ask GWB
(and it took some balls to send some of our own to kill off OBL, don't you think that had THAT turned to be a failure you'd be the happiest R-W idiot around?)

Third, as Jeb Bush found out, ISIS was in the making as soon as GWB allowed for a screwed up Maliki to rob Iraq blind.

Only an idiot would pull out every resource to ensure that Iraq had a better chance to keep the country payed with blood.................Not even keeping Intel capabilities there................Oh yeah.......SOFA SOFA SOFA SOFA.....................Iraq KNEW Obama was going to leave completely no matter any deal made.............so they started making deals with Iran..............

For someone who doesn't love Obama......................you sure post like you were his little chump all the time...............

He was in charge when this place was taken PERIOD.......................

No EXCUSE WILL CHANGE THAT................

Your side stated the same as BUSH EVEN BEFORE HE WAS IN OFFICE.................A time frame that you punks can't blame on Bush................Bill Clinton under his intel was saying the same damned thing................

So suck it up, and stop trying to make EXCUSES for those on the Dem side that voted for it as well............

You are a boring record.................nothing more................trying to start an argument that has gone on for a long time................to try and JUSTIFY your sides part in it.

 

[eagle1462010]

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002 James Love

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq

ISIL does not own Iraq - never did and never will.

 

[eagle1462010]

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq

ISIL does not own Iraq - never did and never will.

Then please explain why Iraqi forces are trying to take back Northern Iraq from them...........Along the Euphrates.......................

If they occupy that territory...............they currently OWN IT................unless you have grey matter the size of a pea or a Gnat.

 

[Faun]

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.

Not liberal = lie, got it

Let me correct that for you ...

kaz = liar

Tell me again how Clinton "occupied" Iraq with "boots on the ground," liar...?

Crying now that it's irrelevant because you got caught lying doesn't mean you didn't lie. You realize that, don'tcha?

Deflection, you just can't deal with my showing Clinton to be a neocon just like daddy and junior as well as Obama

You're a flaming imbecile ... I can deal with that. The neocon position on Iraq was to invade it with boots on the ground to occupy it. Whereas Clinton's position was to not invade with troops or to occupy Iraq. He signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which clearly stated was not to use our military and limited our expense to under $100m.

 

[Faun]

kaz 11394927

My arguments against the Iraq invasion are:

1) It was Unconstitutional. The only authority for the military granted and the only authority for the military which should be granted is for the "defence" of the United States. Attacking Afghanistan was that, they attacked us. Invading Iraq was not. Nation building in Afghanistan was not. In Afghanistan, we should have gone in, killed as many al Qaeda and Taliban as we could and left. We should not have gone into Iraq at all. I oppose Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and having any military bases or permanent troops in the middle east.

2) It was not in our national interest. The Arab governments and Europe are under a far greater threat from radical Islamic States. Yet we push them aside and fight it for them. It's ridiculous. Look what happened when we didn't attack ISIS. Jordan and Egypt did. Why should they take care of themselves when we do it for them?

I don't know why you want to run away by throwing in the 'boring' excuse because I agree with your reasons for opposing the war in Iraq and agree with your support for toppling the Taliban.

I do not agree with leaving Afghanistan after toppling the government. That would have been a disaster to leave the Afghans to fend for themselves.

What I said was:

"I am not saying the invasion is your fault. The invasion is the fault of GWBush and no one else. But you can't seem to find a valid argument against that"

Why don't you provide a valid argument against that?

Why can't you grow a pair and acknowledge your party did this hand in hand with GWB? Pull down your dress, your twat is showing, girlie

Because no one in Congress deployed a single troop. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, was the decider who decided to invade a country which had not attacked us and which was not producing the WMD for which he decided to invade.

Even Bush acknowledges that even if you can't...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

They were side by side stroking each other into war, they are all responsible, Nancy. Grow a pair, it's time to man up to your own side's culpability and stop trying to make political hay on behalf of the war criminals in your own party, including the Veep, Senate Leader and your leading next candidate for the White House

Your insanity is noted as usual.

 

[Faun]

or if they disagree, it's still control.

That makes no sense. This is two posts in a row you care clearly showing you don't know what the word "control" means

We control the SC votes against Israel with our veto. Russia controls the SC votes against Syria with their veto. Do you deny this control?

You didn't say we have veto power or control over some situations, you said we control the UN. Buy a dictionary

Well let me quote me then.

"The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did."

Any of them could have vetoed 1441, but no one, including W could compel them to pass it. If we controlled the UN, W could have compelled them to pass it. He couldn't.

Seriously, BUY A DICTIONARY. Being able to stop something isn't "control." I don't control your car if I siphon the gas out of your car. You can't drive it, but I don't control the car. You are seriously not a bright guy.

In fact, all five voted for it

Why would they veto 1441? 1441 a prelude to get UN inspectors back into Iraq. It wasn't a green light for Bush to invade.

 

[nat4900]

Then please explain why Iraqi forces are trying to take back Northern Iraq from them...........Along the Euphrates.......................

If they occupy that territory...............they currently OWN IT................unless you have grey matter the size of a pea or a Gnat.

Your masochism is flaring....again.....ISIL does NOT "own Iraq".....Look at a freaking map.....Yes, it has taken over a SECTION of Iraq.....but your statement is stupid (as usual)...Following your logic then, you can then also say that the Kurds "own Iraq"....and even that Iranian forces, "own Iraq."....

BTW, do we "own Iraq"?......Following that pottery store dictum, we certainly BROKE IT.

 

[kiwiman127]

aka Hindsight.......................convenient......................it's always easier to say how wrong something is after the fact..................it's a hell of a lot harder for not having the gift of hindsight.....................

Had I have been driving we wouldn't have wrecked.............I'd have known..................EXCUSES................and your side was ready to Capitulate back in 2007 yet the surge worked.....................

Typical.................

Speaking of "typical" bullshit, Beagle, I castigated dems who voted to go to war........Have ANY of your ilk done the same against republicans?

A truism. It's always the other side's fault.
But, we also have that problem on the left. I'm glad we have some lefties who call a spade a spade in regards to Iraq. The right, I'll never hold my breath on that one, ever.

 

[kiwiman127]

After all of the responses on this thread, lets us all keep something in mind.....Yes, mistakes were made either intentionally or by lack of courage.....and democrats were also to blame for their cowardice.

HOWEVER, the measure...the rationale....of/for judgment by US voters toward political figures, should be this:

How many elected officials REGRET the Iraq mistake....and how many still bullshit us that it was "the right thing to do..."

Judge wisely.

The far left will say what they need to make you drones believe whatever they want you to believe.

By the way Kosh, you did a splendid job on this thread. You had posters from the right wondering what the hell you were talking about as you re-wrote history while showing your lack of knowledge of history.
So you made stuff up, hmmmm what do most people call that?

lying1
[lahy-ing]
noun
1.
the telling of lies, or false statements; untruthfulness:

 

[AntiParty]

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?

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?

#538 replies and only one sentence was needed to answer this question.

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. And we were totally warned about this!



All you have to do is look at how much the Military Defense Industry (such as Lockheed Martin) donates to ALL parties!

It's the same with the Bank Bailouts. Banks donate to ALL parties.

Simply follow the money. Further, I heard the very same person gave us intel that Iraq had "WMD's" and Gaddafi was "killing his people". Neither were proven but both parties went to war over the "intel" of one person that wasn't factually proven.

Now here is where the Libertarians try to step in and act like Rand Paul isn't purchased by the same campaign donors lol.

 

[AntiParty]

I'm not a huge Obama supporter, he's just one of the puppets. But when I saw him turn down the Corporate push for 4+ wars under his Presidency, I was impressed.

I know many of the Fox News junkies wanted to "pew pew" their problems many times, and save money lol.