Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[kaz]

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.

You don't know what the word "Neocon" means, imbecile. A Neocon doesn't want to conquer the world, they want to use the military to determine governments. Clinton used the military to keep Hussein's army entirely out of the north of his own country and to keep them from bombing in the south to help the Shiites uprise. Problem was Hussein had devastated the Shittes too much for it to work. You can agree with Clinton's use of the military in Iraq or not, I do not, but it was clearly using our military in an effort to take out Hussein. You keep trying to get me to follow you down a rat hole of "boots on the ground." To deflect from that. It doesn't make his strategy not Neocon, it is. You're wrong, we did have troops in Northern Iraq, but it's irrelevant to the point. Which is why you want to argue it.

And beyond Iraq, Clinton's still a neocon. Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Rawanda and Haiti were specifically about using US forces to determine who is in power. And he attacked Afghanistan and The Sudan as well among others

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, Democrats are responsible for nothing, their farts smell like lilacs, they are loving and well meaning, all the evils of the world are clearly the fault of the Republicans. A Democrat couldn't me mean if they tried.

I don't realize that, I'm so naive, pure lunacy

 

[kaz]

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.

Irrelevant to what I said.

BlindBoob said we control the UN. Vetoing a bill isn't "control" over the UN any more than taking the gas out of your car means I "control" your car.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagle 11406514

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

It's thst you exagerated in favor of Daesh terrorist scum. When someone steals a car off the street do the actually "own" it do they. And in the case of Iraq they have not stolen more than a set of aluminum alloy wheels and not the entire car.

Why not refer Daesh terrorist scum for what they truly are murderous terrorist scum that have attempted to plunder Sunni areas of Iraq but are already being driven back.

I thought the loving relationship that Obama haters had with Daesh when they first went on their killing spree had begun to wane. But I guess not with some of you.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagle 11406514

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

It's thst you exagerated in favor of Daesh terrorist scum. When someone steals a car off the street do the actually "own" it do they. And in the case of Iraq they have not stolen more than a set of aluminum alloy wheels and not the entire car.

Why not refer Daesh terrorist scum for what they truly are murderous terrorist scum that have attempted to plunder Sunni areas of Iraq but are already being driven back.

I thought the loving relationship that Obama haters had with Daesh when they first went on their killing spree had begun to wane. But I guess not with some of you.

You are losing it................dumb ass.............

How the hell does saying they control areas of Northern Iraq lead you to push your BS of I'm exagerating their areas of control in the North of Iraq.................

Riddle me this.................does the Iraqi military hold those places or ISIL>....................

If they don't hold these areas, aka Iraq.............then who the hell controls these regions..............

The Easter Bunny.........................

 

[NotfooledbyW]

How the hell does saying they control areas of Northern Iraq lead you to push your BS of I'm exagerating their areas of control in the North of Iraq.................

You,said Daesh "OWNS" Iraq. That is all of Iraq. Now you admit that you always knew that they "control areas of northern Iraq which certainly,is not even half waned of northern Iraq. So why didn't tell it truthfully in the first place. They don't own any of Iraq and but for internal political reasons within Iraq, Daesh temporarily control (I prefer "are terrorizing") some parts of northern and western Iraq.

By your original standard al Qaeda owned the Pentagon under Bush when they crashed a plane into part of it. That's American soil and US Military headquarters but you'd never say they owned it while the Pentagon was burning would you?

 

[williepete]

I find it interesting the Daily Kos is taking Hillary to task for being pro war. Here, they copy her entire war speech followed by critical commentary.

Hillary's floor speech to invade Iraq
A golden oldie Hillary s floor speech to invade Iraq

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Right, Democrats are responsible for nothing, their farts smell like lilacs, they are loving and well meaning, all the evils of the world are clearly the fault of the Republicans. A Democrat couldn't me mean if they tried.

Nope Democrats are responsible for requiring Bush to push for and get UNSC Resolution 1441 which gave SH the final opportunity to avoid war and stay in power if he allowed the inspectors to come back. By December 2002 SH did much more than just let inspectors in, he offered Bush to bring the CIA, US Military and FBI in to try to find the WMD that Bush alleged was there. Democrats are responsible for that huge offer that should have averted war even according to Bush. Democrats cannot be held responsible for Bush's decision to ignore that offer from SH to let all US intelligence agencies working on WMD proliferation to get right on top of it inside Iraq without bombing runs and shooting the place up for five years.

But you continue to ignore 1441 and the clear path to disarming Iraq peacefully and eliminating that potential threat without all the bloodshed, lives and resources wasted. Bush decided it entirely on his own and you still cannot give us an argument that he did not.

 

[williepete]

Bubba attacks Iraq. I remember at the time the attacks being called "Operation Monica" because of the suspicious timing.

Clinton orders air strike on Iraq Dec. 16 1998 - Andrew Glass - POLITICO.com

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/hillary_clinton_was_pretty_sure_that_hussein_had_wmds.html#ixzz3aKK0ZpRS

 

[eagle1462010]

How the hell does saying they control areas of Northern Iraq lead you to push your BS of I'm exagerating their areas of control in the North of Iraq.................

You,said Daesh "OWNS" Iraq. That is all of Iraq. Now you admit that you always knew that they "control areas of northern Iraq which certainly,is not even half waned of northern Iraq. So why didn't tell it truthfully in the first place. They don't own any of Iraq and but for internal political reasons within Iraq, Daesh temporarily control (I prefer "are terrorizing") some parts of northern and western Iraq.

By your original standard al Qaeda owned the Pentagon under Bush when they crashed a plane into part of it. That's American soil and US Military headquarters but you'd never say they owned it while the Pentagon was burning would you?

I said Northern Iraq you Lying POS. Do you just make shit up as you go.......................

Brain damage.

 

[nat4900]

I said Northern Iraq you Lying POS. Do you just make shit up as you go.......................

Beagle, you're flopping like a flounder (or a Jeb Bush).....in post #531 you stated, "when Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq"

Then....as now.....you didn't state NORTHERN Iraq...just admit you were wrong, move on, and drink some prune juice.

 

[eagle1462010]

I said Northern Iraq you Lying POS. Do you just make shit up as you go.......................

Beagle, you're flopping like a flounder (or a Jeb Bush).....in post #531 you stated, "when Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq"

Then....as now.....you didn't state NORTHERN Iraq...just admit you were wrong, move on, and drink some prune juice.

You are splitting hairs dumb assed gnat...............the North wasn't taken when Obama took office..............ISIL took control later after the U.S. withdrawal..............under Obama...........

and now much of the North is under the control of ISIL unless you live under a rock.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Matthew 11376633

Because Saddam broke 1441 and was spitting in our face. Democrats at this time were more honest and our country was better off. The stupid part started when we started the nation building.

The stupid part starts when one is fooled by the absolutely untrue notion that Saddam broke 1441 in any way. It was Bush43 that decided to put an end to the 1441 inspections and there is absolutely no doubt about that reality. Saddam did not force the inspectors out as he did in 1998.

This Fox News report from December 22, 2002 puts the lie to your claim that SH broke 1441 and was spitting on our face. George W Bush spit on your face Matthew when he refused to send the CIA into Iraq to get first hand intelligence with the UN inspectors that were in the process of moving in at that time.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Published December 22, 2002 FoxNews.com WASHINGTON – Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development. <> Al-Saadi also said during a news conference in Baghdad that Iraq was prepared to answer any questions raised by the United States and Britain. <> "We are ready to deal with each of those questions if you ask us," he said. <> Al-Saadi complained that Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw based their criticisms of Iraq's weapons declaration on "old, rehashed reports" from what he called the previous "discredited" arms inspection program in the 1990s.

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox News

Your claim is proven wrong. What do you intend to do to correct it?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11405891 eagle14

When Obama took office ISIL didn't own Iraq............. Post #532

You did not say ISIL didn't own "Northern" Iraq when Obama took office. The word "Northern" does not appear in your Post #532. No you wish to claim that you did. Do you think you can misquote yourself or erase what you put in writing?

eagle14 11409823

I said Northern Iraq you Lying POS. Post #550

And then you get all foul mouthed and angry while accusing me of making 'shit' up as I go. What is wrong with you?

 

[kaz]

Right, Democrats are responsible for nothing, their farts smell like lilacs, they are loving and well meaning, all the evils of the world are clearly the fault of the Republicans. A Democrat couldn't me mean if they tried.

Nope Democrats are responsible for requiring Bush to push for and get UNSC Resolution 1441 which gave SH the final opportunity to avoid war and stay in power if he allowed the inspectors to come back. By December 2002 SH did much more than just let inspectors in, he offered Bush to bring the CIA, US Military and FBI in to try to find the WMD that Bush alleged was there. Democrats are responsible for that huge offer that should have averted war even according to Bush. Democrats cannot be held responsible for Bush's decision to ignore that offer from SH to let all US intelligence agencies working on WMD proliferation to get right on top of it inside Iraq without bombing runs and shooting the place up for five years.

But you continue to ignore 1441 and the clear path to disarming Iraq peacefully and eliminating that potential threat without all the bloodshed, lives and resources wasted. Bush decided it entirely on his own and you still cannot give us an argument that he did not.

So by your first word "nope" you actually meant "yep"

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 11420473

So by your first word "nope" you actually meant "yep"

My no means no and my yes means yes. Honest people are that way. You falsely said that 'Democrats are responsible for nothing' so I wrote in plain English what they were responsible for and you obviously cannot make an argument against those facts. So you flip flop the meanings of yes and no.

Why not just run away as you usually do when you have absolutely nothing to say that is relevant or truthful?

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

Yeah, Japan never actually bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis powers never declared war upon the US. Right...

FDR did round up Americans of Japanese descent and put them into camps. Only thing you got right.

Truman used the atomic bombs to end WW2. There is no try.

FDR rounded up Japanese. Profiled them. Put them in camps based on the color of their skin.....you Lefties celebrate him. Bush sought to intercept and record calls of suspected terrorists and you Lefties said he was taking away our rights. Argue why Bush should not have followed FDR's path on protecting the Homeland.

 

[deltex1]

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?

Dems voted for the war because they didn't know then what they know now...although what they know now is worse than what they didn't know then because what they know now is dead wrong.

 

[Faun]

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.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

Yeah, Japan never actually bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis powers never declared war upon the US. Right...

FDR did round up Americans of Japanese descent and put them into camps. Only thing you got right.

Truman used the atomic bombs to end WW2. There is no try.

FDR rounded up Japanese. Profiled them. Put them in camps based on the color of their skin.....you Lefties celebrate him. Bush sought to intercept and record calls of suspected terrorists and you Lefties said he was taking away our rights. Argue why Bush should not have followed FDR's path on protecting the Homeland.

We celebrate FDR's accomplishments ... we criticize him for internment of the Japanese.

 

[Faun]

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?

Dems voted for the war because they didn't know then what they know now...although what they know now is worse than what they didn't know then because what they know now is dead wrong.

The vote was to give Bush the authority to take the country into war if he thought Iraq was a threat and that invasion was the only way to keep Hussein from developing WMD.