maineman
Banned
actually...they ALL did not lie.... like I have said over and over again... a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE.
The Second American Revolution - We The People
- Thread starter meme
- Start date
actually...they ALL did not lie.... like I have said over and over again... a MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST THE USE OF FORCE.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so that majority of democrats, despite the preponderance of evidence they were given, didn't care enough about the security of the USA to vote for the use of force. Thank you for the admission of treason.
Just a casual glance at recent history, with statements & testimony from people like Paul O'Neil, British intelligence, Paul Wolfowicz, Dick Armey & Colin Powell's top aide, lead to an easy conclusion that the admin stacked & cherrypicked the evidence to make the case for war. It's indisputable. While that in itself is dishonest, there are also documented lies, as in the PDB on Curveball.
The concerted effort on this thread & elsewhere to try to alleviate the admin of accountability is amazing. The mere idea that this was some sort of bipartisan effort, or that Bush just "happened to be in office" when we invaded Iraq, is a complete re-write of history. It's laughable.
Fortunately, no one is really buying it.
The concerted effort on this thread & elsewhere to try to alleviate the admin of accountability is amazing. The mere idea that this was some sort of bipartisan effort, or that Bush just "happened to be in office" when we invaded Iraq, is a complete re-write of history. It's laughable.
Fortunately, no one is really buying it.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
maineman
Banned
preponderance of evidence? half baked single sourced made up bullshit? Anyone with any knowledge of the middle east at all would KNOW that secular baathist pan-arabists would NEVER give weapons to extreme Islamic wahhabists...
thank you for YOUR admission of profound ignorance....not that you needed to actually TELL anyone that which was plainly evident all along.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I stated my post that way because I'm wondering that if those majority democrats that voted against the action KNEW that the evidence was false.....why didn't they stand up and say anything?
I give a pass to no one on that vote. But I also think a lot of legislators - on both sides - convinced themselves that invasion wasn't inevitable. Many talked about force coming in the form of airstrikes or missiles, after all other options were exhausted. People also forget the atmosphere of the vote: it WAS presented as a show of unity to Saddam, to force his hand. People who opposed it were called traitors.
That's no excuse, but it's a more comprehensive look at the overall picture.
Here is Armey's view; if Armey, an admin supporter, was going through this, you can well imagine the rest of Congress:
"Armey had succumbed to Cheney's pressure. He had decided to be the good soldier, the loyal partisan. But this vote weighed upon him. For weeks afterward, he would agonize about it and try to convince himself that he had not actually voted for a war. He wanted to believe that he had merely given Bush the option to use military force, to strengthen the president's hand in pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Saddam problem. “I’ll tell my grandchildren that," he later said. "I’ll split that hair until hell freezes over." But Armey suspected he was lying to himself. In December of that year, he would be driving along a stretch of Texas highway when a country song would come on about a fellow who looked in the mirror and saw a stranger. The line hit him hard. He had voted for the war against his better instincts, Armey now thought, and he had become that stranger. Disappointed with himself, Armey was thankful he had a year ago decided to leave the House at the end of this term. Six years later, the vote on Iraq still weighed on him—one of the biggest regrets of his public life."
That's no excuse, but it's a more comprehensive look at the overall picture.
Here is Armey's view; if Armey, an admin supporter, was going through this, you can well imagine the rest of Congress:
"Armey had succumbed to Cheney's pressure. He had decided to be the good soldier, the loyal partisan. But this vote weighed upon him. For weeks afterward, he would agonize about it and try to convince himself that he had not actually voted for a war. He wanted to believe that he had merely given Bush the option to use military force, to strengthen the president's hand in pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Saddam problem. “I’ll tell my grandchildren that," he later said. "I’ll split that hair until hell freezes over." But Armey suspected he was lying to himself. In December of that year, he would be driving along a stretch of Texas highway when a country song would come on about a fellow who looked in the mirror and saw a stranger. The line hit him hard. He had voted for the war against his better instincts, Armey now thought, and he had become that stranger. Disappointed with himself, Armey was thankful he had a year ago decided to leave the House at the end of this term. Six years later, the vote on Iraq still weighed on him—one of the biggest regrets of his public life."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
A very good reminder to folks that they shouldn't put an elected president on a pedestal.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
exactly....
this whole blame only bush game is moronic at best, and dishonest at worst, though it has been nice to see some dems on here admit that it was not only bush...
that said...if it was not only bush, then did bush really lie? saddam's own generals said he had WMDs...other governments said he had WMDs....
bush did not lie, if he did, then so did many dems and other world leaders but many dems on this board only want to blame bush....
Yeah, and Christians would "never" arm Radical Fundamentalist Muslims.
C
Cancel5
Guest
I know, look at Bush, Dumpty fell down and broke his crown!
SmarterthanYou
rebel
not going to disagree with you.
maineman
Banned
Yeah, and Christians would "never" arm Radical Fundamentalist Muslims.
when we were supplying afghan rebels in their fight against the soviet union, we failed to use the sort of strategic vision that would have predicted that those same rebels would see our continued support of Israel and the gulf states as a major irritant in the future. Saddam, on the other hand, was well aware of the goals of Islamic extremists, and knew full well that the elimination of the secular state of Iraq was high on their agenda.
maineman
Banned
the majority of democrats did not find the evidence compelling. neither did I. that does not make us traitors... your post does make you an ignorant moron, however. sorry about that.
and they did stand up and say something. go read the transcripts of the debates...and their votes against the use of force resolution certainly said something as well.
Just as secular entities can make the same sort of "mistakes" even if they are Muslims.
maineman
Banned
we would not have armed the afghan mujahadeen if we had known that bringing down the American government was an integral part of their goals.
Saddam KNEW that about AQ.... he would NOT have given them WMD's even if he had had them.... imho.
We would have, if we thought it would help take down the Bear.
Politics make strange bedfellows.
We gave weapons to Iran because they were a counterweight to Iraq, knowing full well they wanted Israel gone and were largely against the US politically.
Even Muslims can fall under this kind of (what I call) Negative Diplomacy. They are not exempt from this sort of thing, and to pretend that they are perfect in this instance is silly. There was no assurance that they could not come to terms long enough to attempt to snare a larger foe.
One group of people who burn in effigy the American President may have more in common with another group who burns the same effigy than you clearly ever want to admit.
maineman
Banned
Ah well... it's monday morning quarterbacking in any case. We should just agree to disagree....God knows we have been bantering this point long enough. You and I have different beliefs and those beliefs impact the way we look at the war in Iraq. I can honestly say that I would have been equally disappointed if President Al Gore had invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003 using the same rationale that Bush used. If he had, I would like to think that I would have urged that my party mount a primary campaign against him in 2004... but that is more of the same idle speculation, isn't it?
p.s. don't you have your Iraq and Iran switched up in the bolded sentence above?
I've never supported the war in Iraq. IMO, it is seriously disingenuous to pretend that I have. We just didn't support it for different reasons, and I can recognize victory when it finally is reached.
And no, I don't. They got F-14s because we allowed it. We bartered and traded between them, hoping for a "balance" that would maintain a false stability in the region. We did it for decades.
C
Cancel5
Guest
Victory? Damo are you serious, you think we have victory in Iraq?
In what sense is it victory and how do you know it has been reached?