Democrats were just as pro-Iraq War as the Republicans

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 3:58am

arold10 wrote: »

I've never mentioned that all Democrats voted in favor of the war.

I know.

And I never said you did.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 4:07am

I realize its not your thread.

Back in 2002 there was still a semblance of bipartisanship in US politics and generally when a US president confronts a foreign threat and asks congress (basically asking The People) for authorization to use force, he's usually given it, whether its vietnam or korea or iraq.

This one was odd in that there was so much resistance from Democrats. Because the "evidence" was so weak. But the President insisted. He promised. He pleaded. And remember this wasnt necessarily to go to war it was to give him the ability to at least threaten saddam.

The nationalist fervor of the time was amazing. Why wouldnt anyone vote to give the President the power he asked for in an emergency as it was portrayed? And yet he still only got 40% of the Democrats.

Which is why the title of this thread is such uneducated bullsh*t.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 4:17am

arold10 wrote: »

He then voted for every legislation that was designed to fund the war.

Did you see what happened to the republicans last year when they tried to shut down the government by not voting to pass the budget?

Do you have any idea what would happen if they Democrats hadnt passed a military budget while troops are out there fighting??

You cant end a war by just stopping paying the troops.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 4:26am

arold10 wrote: »

But, if you read quotes from numerous Democrats it's quite obvious that there was strong support among them for the war.

Okay I'll bite.

Show me a Democrat who strongly supported the war in Iraq.

Kerry? Hilary?

I think you'll find they supported the Presidency (the office more than bush individually) and HAD TO believe that he wasn't lying to them when he claimed to have evidence.

jimeryan22 · 06-07-2014 11:38am

Here the guy that really really really tells you how it is.. Gerald celente for president..!!!!!

http://youtu.be/SIg-Puc15CA

Carlos Orange · 06-07-2014 12:16pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

The nationalist fervor of the time was amazing. Why wouldnt anyone vote to give the President the power he asked for in an emergency as it was portrayed? And yet he still only got 40% of the Democrats.

Was it? There was a majority in favour of war if the second UN resolution was rejected but not overwhelmingly so. No majority if it wasn't even voted on. Then the war is started and people naturally rallied to support it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

arold10 · 06-07-2014 5:37pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Did you see what happened to the republicans last year when they tried to shut down the government by not voting to pass the budget?

Do you have any idea what would happen if they Democrats hadnt passed a military budget while troops are out there fighting??

You cant end a war by just stopping paying the troops.

I can see the point you are trying to make. However, I remember Obama get pounded repeatedly by Hilary Clinton for not keeping his original position against the war. It seemed like he was not sure about how he should have proceeded with his position on the war.

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 5:55pm

Well thats probably true. I went to a few anti-war marches in the US back then and it felt like the weight of the country was for war. In reality a lot of it was the right wing controlled media.

I was looking at the wiki on anti war protests and found this line which is very indicative of the time:

"A Fox News poll showed that 63% had an unfavorable view of the protesters, just 23% had a favorable view.[7] According to Pew Research, 40% said in March 2003 that they had heard "too much" from people opposed to the war against 17% who said "too little"."

Nothing about lack of evidence, or actual facts, just people's "feelings" that anti-war protesting was unpatriotic. And the crap "evidence" that was shown later to be lies was obviously lies at the time as well. Its not like everyone was fooled by this bs. We watched colin powell at the UN and laughed at his really childish attempts to convince us that some aluminum pipes were missiles and that model aeroplanes could spread poison gases. It was a f'ing joke. The creepy part was when the "media" treated the evidence as Absolute Truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

InTheTrees · 06-07-2014 6:11pm

arold10 wrote: »

I can see the point you are trying to make. However, I remember Obama get pounded repeatedly by Hilary Clinton for not keeping his original position against the war. It seemed like he was not sure about how he should have proceeded with his position on the war.

Yes. The Democratic primary between Hilliary and Obama was prolonged and hard fought.

Its hard to go back and go through what they said about each other. Obama was an Illinois politician at the time, wasnt even in washington DC yet so I dont know too much.

Sorry to keep quoting wiki's:

"Obama was an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq.[61] On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[62] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally,[63] and spoke out against the war.[64] He addressed another anti-war rally in March 2003 and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.[65]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

daUbiq · 18-07-2014 4:14pm

...a war that should have been fought to the finish whatever the cost.

What are you TC? some kinda deluded Patriot? This is Ireland, not Kansas. The Americans have habit of starting stuff they can't or won't finish. Usually through incompetence or outright stupidity. You've been watching the RTE news and reading the Irish Independent again... big mistake.

InTheTrees · 18-07-2014 4:34pm

See my post #45

This is in the news right now because dick cheney, the original Republican architect of the war in Iraq is dying, he's on his 2nd heart transplant I think, and he's trying to clean up his war legacy by making out he was right all along. Oh and his daughter is trying to run for the senate.

SO he's out there blaming anyone other than himself and even suggesting that we go back into Iraq again.

Nobodys taking him seriously:

"The Cheneys largely stuck to their usual talking points during the discussion, criticizing President Barack Obama and defending the war in Iraq. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/cheney-protesters_n_5585000.html

arold10 · 19-07-2014 12:35pm

As I said previously, the Republican in common always have a problem acknowledging the war was a catastrophic blunder. To be honest with you, I have a serious problem with their constant refusal to admit something that can clearly be seen as a disaster by anyone. I've watched several George Bush's interviews, whenever he is asked that question "Is the war in Iraq worth it, in term of sacrifices?" His response is always that "well this is something that I can't really answer as for now, I'll let history tell the truth as it takes time to unfold, or history will be my ultimate judge. His hope lies on the fact that people will eventually look back and realize that the world is a much better, safer place without Saddam on power.

I think this a way of trying not to take full responsibility for misleading the American people. If they are honest with themselves, it's easy for them to realize that everything they said concerning Iraq prior to the invasion turns out not to be true. As far as Dick Cheney is concerned, he is like a mad man going out there defending that the decision to go in was a good one, and blaming the current president for not staying the course, or not being decisive enough regarding taking action.

InTheTrees · 19-07-2014 5:26pm

I think Cheney has a problem with his daughter wanting to run for the Senate. Either she admits that it was a mistake going into Iraq and is forced to criticize her dad or she goes along with old man Cheney and tries to spin the war as being a great idea, which makes her look like an idiot.

Tough choices.

SO a viable strategy is to go out and start claiming everybody was just as enthusiastic for war as the Republicans were. They're trying to spread the blame about. Everyone was doing it. Except that its only the cheney's and some of their right wing radio show allies. And the strategy only lasted a few weeks.

Which is probably why the original poster of this thread never came back with any defense of his nonsense post.

arold10 · 22-07-2014 8:45pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

Which is probably why the original poster of this thread never came back with any defense of his nonsense post.

Well, I seriously think that Dick Cheney needs to stop with his nonsense. I've learned that he and his daughter have created an organization which carries that name "The Alliance for A Strong America" with the sole purpose of promoting a stronger America through restoring its strength, power and influence around the world.

When taking a closer look at that war, if George Bush had known for sure that this was war going to become a disaster he would not have authorized the invasion in the first place. I get a serious problem when I see those guys out there keep on defending that stupid, unnecessary war.

Egginacup · 16-10-2014 2:56am

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

A selection of quotes from senior Democrats demonstrate that prior to the Bush Presidency and in the lead up to the war in Iraq Democrats were full square behind military action:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the
capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to
deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton,
Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our
purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President
Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there
matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue
state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or
our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline
Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he
has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National
Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary
actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on
suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by
Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom
Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of
weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries
in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building
weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated
his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States
and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen.
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a
tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has
ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of
mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen.
Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23,
2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven
impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as
long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using
and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We
are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"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 alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay
Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry
Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling
evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years,
a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of
mass
destruction. "[W]ithout 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 has
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.

Why did they change their tune?

Opportunistic political partisanship of course.

In two subsequent Presidential elections the Democrats campaigned on a populist anti-Iraq War ticket.

Obama won the Presidency preaching against the War in Iraq and as soon as he was in office he began planning to withdraw the troops.

Now the troops have been withdrawn the all too predictable collapse occurred.

Obama and the Democrats have only themselves to blame for the mess that Middle East is in today - for undermining the American war effort politically and turning the American public against a war that should have been fought to the finish whatever the cost.

Today Islamic terrorists are sweeping all before them and a weak and divided America is more vulnerable than ever to Islamic terrorists.

Democrats who turned against the Iraq war are nothing less than traitors.

The same occurred 40 years ago when they got their desired withdrawal from Vietnam in 1973. South Vietnam was supposedly secure and could stand on its own two feet but the Democrats voted to cut funding and in 1975 the country collapsed to the Communists costing millions their lives.

As Obama sends in hundreds of troops to the Green Zone are we about to witness a repeat of the helicopter lift while the poor Iraqis who put their faith in America are massacred by the Islamic savages?

Islamic savages?

2 million people would still be alive if it wasn't for AMERICAN savages like this piece of filth:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-think-Iraqis-humans-says-U-S-soldier-raped-14-year-old-girl-killing-her-family.html

That sweet little flower who they gangraped and then killed...oh and then killed her family....and the millions of children like her who are missing limbs or eyes, or parents, who whimper themselves to sleep every night and will do so for the rest of their lives.
American gunships hovering overhead and slaughtering people for fun, laughing at them and then slaughtering those who come to help the dying:

<go and find the disgusting video>

Or those ascquitted of the Haditha Massacre...not so much as a demotion?

All these innocent Iraqi people slaughtered....and you talk about savages?

What savages killed and maimed and terrorised these people?

Amerika · 16-10-2014 7:49pm

Hmmm... Seems there was quite a bit of WMD stockpiled in Iraq that the Pentagon decided to keep secret for one reason or another.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

arold10 · 16-10-2014 9:50pm

Wow, this discussion about the war in Iraq is still going on.

Black Swan · 16-10-2014 10:57pm

arold10 wrote: »

Wow, this discussion about the war in Iraq is still going on.

Not in theory, but in practice, did the 2nd Persian Gulf War (Iraq II) ever end? I know that GW Bush landed on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind him claiming mission accomplished years ago, but has the fighting ever completely stopped? Obama claimed to have withdrawn the troops, but a small army of military advisers remained, as well as contracted military. Will the number of US boots on the ground increase fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Should the 2nd Persian Gulf War be renamed the sequel (Iraq III?).

arold10 · 17-10-2014 12:05pm

I posted my comment in the sense that I thought the discussion was over. It's also been quite a long time since we've commented on that thread. So, I believe that this thread had already been buried in other pages in the "US Politics Category". With respect to what you say the situation in Iraq is getting deteriorated from time to time with ISIS taking control of a number of cities. These guys are terrible and they are killing people who disagree with them or stand on their way by a large number.

I sincerely believe that they have to be stopped. As you know the mistake that was made in Iraq by underestimating how long it was going to take to win that war along with how disastrous the war was in relation to the damage it has caused to US military makes the current administration more cautious about us ground force.

el pibe · 23-10-2014 3:03pm

>> Wow, this discussion about the war in Iraq is still going on.

Pretty much what i say during the news every night

el pibe · 23-10-2014 3:08pm

>> Not in theory, but in practice, did the 2nd Persian Gulf War (Iraq II) ever end?

When I was growing up what we knew as the Gulf War was a hegemonic struggle for the middle east between Iran and Iraq and its various sponsors.

It could be argued that the current resurgence of violence is more a continuation of that conflict than the failed western meddling of 2003 onwards, though the allegiances and actors have shifted a bit.

InTheTrees · 23-10-2014 6:34pm

arold10 wrote: »

Wow, this discussion about the war in Iraq is still going on.

I think it was renewed because of dick cheneys brief vain attempts to clear his name by paying someone to write a book for him and then hitting the talk shows to try and convince us that everyone was in favour of war back then.

Fcuking a**hole.

Amerika · 23-10-2014 6:40pm

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think it was renewed because of dick cheneys brief vain attempts to clear his name by paying someone to write a book for him and then hitting the talk shows to try and convince us that everyone was in favour of war back then.

Fcuking a**hole.

Nah, I think it's because the war in Iraq IS still going on.

Democrats were just as pro-Iraq War as the Republicans

Comments