Democrats were just as pro-Iraq War as the Republicans

Azwaldo55

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?

comongethappy

We know the democrats voted in large part for that war.

Your post is a decade late.

Azwaldo55

comongethappy wrote: »

We know the democrats voted in large part for that war.

Your post is a decade late.

The point of the OP is to demonstrate that the Democrats committed treason by undermining American public morale and engineering defeat in Vietnam and in Iraq. In Vietnam tens of thousands of Americans went to war urged on by the Democrats only for them to turn against the war at home. They repeated this once again in Iraq and they are about to do it a third time in Afghanistan.
The consequences of the American defeat in Vietnam were disastrous costing millions of lives which could have been saved and prolonged the Cold War as Communists were emboldened.
The consequences of the American defeat in Iraq will also be catastrophic and may endanger global supplies of oil as instability may engulf the entire region and beyond.
There will undoubtedly be blowback as Islamists fresh from victory in Iraq will consolidate and expand their fight to the region and the globe.
All of this because the Democrats sought political advantage over the Republicans and undermined the war effort.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The point of the OP is to demonstrate that the Democrats committed treason by undermining American public morale and engineering defeat in Vietnam and in Iraq. In Vietnam tens of thousands of Americans went to war urged on by the Democrats only for them to turn against the war at home. They repeated this once again in Iraq and they are about to do it a third time in Afghanistan.
The consequences of the American defeat in Vietnam were disastrous costing millions of lives which could have been saved and prolonged the Cold War as Communists were emboldened.
The consequences of the American defeat in Iraq will also be catastrophic and may endanger global supplies of oil as instability may engulf the entire region and beyond.
There will undoubtedly be blowback as Islamists fresh from victory in Iraq will consolidate and expand their fight to the region and the globe.
All of this because the Democrats sought political advantage over the Republicans and undermined the war effort.

I would have thought Iraq war was pretty much doomed the moment the faulty intelligence was dreamt up to take the country into a deeply unpopular pre-emptive war

It's not so much that it was "lost", it was that it was un-winnable in the first place

Azwaldo55

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would have thought Iraq war was pretty much doomed the moment the faulty intelligence was dreamt up to take the country into a deeply unpopular pre-emptive war

The Democrats saw the same intelligence that the Republicans did and they still voted for the war. Kerry did. Hillary did. They all did. Except Obama of course. When the Democrats voted for the war did they think it was doomed? It only became doomed when Democrats turned public opinion against it by constantly attacking Bush and his administration. Repeat the lie enough times and the people will believe it.

It's not so much that it was "lost", it was that it was un-winnable in the first place

Stop rewriting history.
Petraeus defeated the insurgents in the surge.
Obama withdrew the troops and left responsibility to an Iraqi Army that was not ready. Even advisers and special forces who could have assisted them were withdrawn.
McCain said that American forces would be in Iraq for decades just like they are still in Korea, Germany and Japan today decades after the Korean War and World War 2.
Obama just pulled the plug and the predictable happened.
The Iraqi military went into a step decline without American supervision and assistance and collapsed without a serious fight.
Now Obama is considering air strikes.
The f*cking guy should resign.
He has pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

When American withdrew from Vietnam the Viet Cong had been defeated and the Communist North Vietnamese Army had been smashed into battle after battle. The South Vietnamese Army with American weapons and assistance could have fought on but the funding was cut to the country by the Democrats and within two years the Communists overran the country.

History has repeated itself - first as tragedy and then as farce.

Jonny7

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Stop rewriting history.
Petraeus defeated the insurgents in the surge.

It wasn't really possible to "defeat" the insurgency - because it was on so many levels, with so many players. At one stage the US were even allied to the Sunni insurgents they had previously been fighting in the Anbar region simply because the Al Qaeda fighters and jihadists were doing too much damage

Obama just pulled the plug and the predictable happened.

Ah not really, the war was deeply unpopular, a quagmire and seen as a failure across much of the region (and world).. it was a money-sink for the US, most of which was falling into corrupt hands (even fueling the insurgency ironically) and worse, it was costing lives

It was get-out time. They didn't cut and run though, they did their best to shore up.. pretty much what the multi-national force is now doing in Afghanistan before the inevitable.

Sadly the fledgling Afghan army will also crumble when faced with inevitable onslaught awaiting them the moment US/NATO leaves

The f*cking guy should resign.
He has pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

What is victory? am no fan of Saddam, am very aware of the country under the Ba'athists, but it was not much better under 8 years of US supervision, I would argue worse in many respects

Ironically this ISIS incursion might actually bring some bite and cohesiveness to Maliki and the Iraqi military.. it's very much crunch time for them

Azwaldo55

Ironically this ISIS incursion might actually bring some bite and cohesiveness to Maliki and the Iraqi military.. it's very much crunch time for them

With Iranian help of course? Iran is filling the vacuum after Obama foolishly withdrew American military advisers and special forces.

benway

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Stop rewriting history.
Petraeus defeated the insurgents in the surge.
Obama withdrew the troops and left responsibility to an Iraqi Army that was not ready. Even advisers and special forces who could have assisted them were withdrawn....
He has pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory.

Petraeus? Wait, I thought Dubya defeated Eyrakee Turrism™ through the power of faith, or something? Stop rewriting history, brah.



Plus, if Petraeus defeated the insurgents, who are these ISIS guys?

And wasn't Obama one of the few Dems who was consistent in opposing the Iraq war from the start? One of his few redeeming qualities, tbh.

Anyone could have predicted that Iraq would be an unwinnable quagmire, just like Vietnam, and so it has transpired. To think of the hysteria in those days, it was deeply unpopular and unconventional to suggest the bleedin' obvious. Not excusing the Dems, mind, but ultimately Iraq is on Dubya & Associates. End of.

And, given that the financial state that the US found itself in after spending trillions on Iraq and Afghanistan, coincidentally enough, do you think it would be reasonable to keep running a war that there's no prospect of winning?

Black Swan

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Why did they change their tune?

All those quotes by Democrats assume that Iraq was stockpiling WMD based upon information provided by the GW Bush administration.

Connect the dots:

• Vice President Dick Cheney creates the illusion and whips up the post-911 hysteria that Iraq is stock piling WMD before US Congress and news media (based upon false reports of yellow cakes, etc.).
• Sec of State Colin Powell accepts Dick Cheney's false evidence and issues protest before the UN about Iraq WMD stockpiling.
• GW Bush makes speech to nation and world about the Axis of Evil, naming Iraq (and then attacking Iraq using WMD as part of the reason for Shock and Awe).

sin_city

Surely people realize that there is no difference in both parties other than their PR departments.

Azwaldo55

sin_city wrote: »

Surely people realize that there is no difference in both parties other than their PR departments.

They obviously don't.
Obama was elected on a wave of messianic optimism of vague notions of Hope and Change.
The results have been a disaster for the United States and the world.

Black Swan

sin_city wrote: »

Surely people realize that there is no difference in both parties other than their PR departments.

But there are consequences as John Adams cautioned in 1789:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Rather than collaborating across the aisle in the best interests of the people who elected them, both the Democrats and Republicans waste energy, time, and resources petty bickering, point scoring, grandstanding, and reducing the efficiency and effectiveness of their government.

Jonny7

Just one unpopular (with both sides) point I would like to make

It's quite plausible there were WMDs, we in the West helped provide the precursors and very irresponsibly didn't control certain biological samples handed over to the Iraqis for "research into antidotes"

Obviously the Bush admin didn't have the actual specific details and made a grave mistake and underestimation by inventing a fair bit of it - however they were probably indirectly correct.. it's quite likely Saddam disposed of them just before the invasion

Black Swan

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's quite plausible there were WMDs

Before GW Bush launched Shock and Awe, it had been noted:

CNN 14 February 2003 "U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix reports to the U.N. Security Council that his team has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

After the war had been launched by GW Bush:

"WASHINGTON – The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction;" and this is quoted from Fox News 7 October 2004, a network that generally favours the Republican agenda.

NO WMD. Not immediately before Iraq II, nor after Iraq II started. Period.

After the 2nd disclosure by the chief US arms inspector (above), there was a lot of waffling by the GW Bush administration (maybe's, potentials, what if's), as well as from the Congressional Republicans and Democrats that voted for war, given that the WMD threat to the US by Iraq was one of the main reasons for launching Shock and Awe. Without this spurious and politically manufactured WMD threat (with Cheney, Powell, and GW Bush fanning the WMD flames), and as evidenced by the pile of WMD quotes that started this thread, I doubt that the GW Bush administration would have started the 2nd Persian Gulf War.

After this massive WMD egg-on-face event, the Shock and Awe emphasis slipped into the background, and was replaced by a heavy focus on Operation Iraqi Freedom spin.

Jonny7

Black Swan wrote: »

NO WMD. Not immediately before Iraq II, nor after Iraq II started. Period.

I would agree but only regarding deploy-able weapons

I followed the progress from Hans Blix and his team on a daily basis. In the preceding dark period ('98 to late 2002).. and UN teams weren't infallible, Saddam had a habit of producing agents/missiles the previous UN team had completely missed. He was a master of hiding weapons, projects, etc you name it, made a career of it so to speak.

Hans Blix was thorough but not infallible. There's enough doubt, even in his own strong report -

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for". One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Anyway, will remain a great mystery, but wouldn't surprise me in the least if a large cache were discovered buried in the desert somewhere, along with whatever unfortunates were tasked with doing the concealing.

Brian?

Jonny7 wrote: »

Just one unpopular (with both sides) point I would like to make

It's quite plausible there were WMDs, we in the West helped provide the precursors and very irresponsibly didn't control certain biological samples handed over to the Iraqis for "research into antidotes"

Obviously the Bush admin didn't have the actual specific details and made a grave mistake and underestimation by inventing a fair bit of it - however they were probably indirectly correct.. it's quite likely Saddam disposed of them just before the invasion

Firstly, define WMDs. Secondly, do the presence of WMDs in a country justify bombing it flat?

Black Swan

Jonny7 wrote: »

...wouldn't surprise me in the least if a large cache were discovered buried in the desert somewhere...

Along with former Vice President Dick Cheney's yellow cakes?

Jonny7

Brian? wrote: »

Firstly, define WMDs. Secondly, do the presence of WMDs in a country justify bombing it flat?

Biological or chemical weapons (Saddam had no nuclear capability)

and to the second question answer is no

Just to be clear..

Hans Blix cleared the country of "WMD", that is far better than the shady intel used by the US/UK to justify the war - aka there were no useable WMDs in the country, especially nothing of the sort paraded in the ridiculous "45 minute claim" nor the Niger yellow cake (which turned out to be false)

So to be clear, the Bush/Blair admin had zero credible evidence and zero basis for going to war on the claim of the threat of WMD by Saddam

I am speaking from a private stand-point for the unaccounted stockpiles after '98 - technically there's a high chance they are somewhere in Iraq, albeit buried, with anyone who knew their location now presumably dead (or hung)

Black Swan

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hans Blix was thorough but not infallible. There's enough doubt, even in his own strong report -

One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist.

Black Swan wrote: »

CNN 14 February 2003 "U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix reports to the U.N. Security Council that his team has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

"WASHINGTON – The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction;" and this is quoted from Fox News 7 October 2004, a network that generally favours the Republican agenda.

NO WMD. Just maybe's and what if's based upon misleading and false evidence (and post 911 political hysteria) that cannot be used to apologize for starting the 2nd Persian Gulf War by the GW Bush administration, as well as the Congressional Republicans and Democrats that voted for war.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Anyway, will remain a great mystery, but wouldn't surprise me in the least if a large cache were discovered buried in the desert somewhere, along with whatever unfortunates were tasked with doing the concealing.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am speaking from a private stand-point for the unaccounted stockpiles after '98 - technically there's a high chance they are somewhere in Iraq, albeit buried, with anyone who knew their location now presumably dead (or hung)

This might be a topic for a new thread in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Jonny7

Black Swan wrote: »

NO WMD.

...that Hans Blix found in a search of several hundred sites.

This does not mean that there were absolutely no WMD hidden anywhere in the half a million square kilometres that is Iraq. Previous searches had shown that Saddam was adept at keeping stockpiles/elements away from inspectors, only to reveal them later.

I am talking about small amounts here - which they did find after the invasion
In 2004 they found containers of mustard gas. Several years later they found 155mm shells filled with mustard gas. In 2008 they found more shells filled with a different chemical.

So technically they did find "WMD", but just not close to the amounts or types that were falsely used to justify the war

The remnants of Saddams huge biological and chemical projects remain everywhere - in fact ISIS/ISIL have recently captured one of the largest, however much of the material there will be useless, and if they break the seals they are much more likely to harm themselves than others

ChicagoJoe

ISIS agenda has been pruned and tarted up by many in the West including the Democrats. Chinese influence is growing in the middle east region, and with the alliance of Al Sisi and Putin, so is Moscows. The net result of Western involvement has been that the inevitable face off between the two major forces of Islam.

Black Swan

Jonny7 wrote: »

...that Hans Blix found in a search of several hundred sites.

Not only did Hans Blix report no WMD found, but also the chief inspector for the US after the invasion did not find any WMD (which you continue to ignore in your posts):

Black Swan wrote: »

"WASHINGTON – The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction;" and this is quoted from Fox News 7 October 2004, a network that generally favours the Republican agenda.

If any inspectors had a huge incentive to find WMD in Iraq, it was these US inspectors appointed by the GW Bush administration. Furthermore, the GW Bush administration would have been loudly proclaiming to the world that they found WMD evidence (official reports, official pics, official vids of WMD) during the many years fighting and occupying Iraq through January 2009. But no, the GW Bush administration made no such official claims, which would have saved them from the international no-WMD scandal.

We might as well agree to disagree, because you believe there were WMD regardless of what both the UN and US officially reported, before and after the 2nd Persian Gulf War. Enough said.

Jonny7

Black Swan wrote: »

Not only did Hans Blix report no WMD found, but also the chief inspector for the US after the invasion did not find any WMD (which you continue to ignore in your posts):

We might as well agree to disagree, because you believe there were WMD regardless of what both the UN and US officially reported, before and after the 2nd Persian Gulf War. Enough said.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding going on here..

The Bush admin were convinced there that Saddam still had active large WMD programs - this was false/faulty intelligence - and still remains that way to this day

-Hans Blix and his team did not find WMD
-It's not possible that his team could manage to search the entire country, any country, check every inch and say with 100% certainty there were no chemical/biological agents/weapons/delivery systems whatsoever
-In later years after the war, chemical weapons shells were actually found

The Bush admin made a huge effort post-invasion to search the country in a desperate attempt to prove and validate one of their key motives - after several years small amounts were found, but it was too late and the amounts were too insignificant

So

a) There were no WMD programs or significant WMD's discovered by Hans Blix or discovered in Iraq since

b) Wikileaks shows us there were small amounts of chemical weapons, aka WMD's, discovered in later years

Both are facts.

Amerika

WMD, WMD, WMD... By the way, did I mention WMD?

Man, was anyone else alive and paying attention during the reasons given by the GWB administration for going to war with Iraq?

*** WARNING *** Avert your eyes if you wish to remain in the fog of war!

After the first Gulf War and 9/11 Saddam Hussein continued to sponsor terrorism and continued to be a threat to his neighboring countries, and he had killed tens of thousands of his own people. There was also the quick victory in Afghanistan which showed that nation building could work to turn a problem region to a more stable one with accessible ports, good terrain, and a literate populace that a force like to US and it's allies could use in the event of trouble in the area. Both the House and Senate passed 23 writs justifying the removal of Saddam Hussein and there was also Bill Clinton’s 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Then there was Oil, which was proven that the US had no intention of taking, but instead provided Saddam with revenues and resources to always remain a problem in the area. Add to all that genocide against the Kurds and other groups in the country, his bounties for suicide bombers, his providing sanctuary for terrorists, the attempt to kill Bush the senior, and numerous violations of U.N. sanctions and resolutions... and remember all the times Hans Blix’s teams were not allowed to enter suspected sites (guess you can’t really find any WMD if you’re not allowed to look for them, eh?) These helped at the time in getting bipartisan support in Congress, support in the media, and support in the people. And yes, there was the specter of WMD which most Middle Eastern governments and European intelligence agencies agreed were there. Unfortunately they didn’t find huge cashes of WMD... well yet anyway. Even democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Harry Reid at the time called for Saddam Hussein’s removal, and warned us of intelligence intel stating he had WMD arsenals. Perhaps the WMD went to Syria in those truckloads we saw crossing the border before hostilities commenced, perhaps they’re still hidden, perhaps they’re now in the hands of ISIS, or perhaps they didn’t exist and were in fact destroyed.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

There was also the quick victory in Afghanistan which showed that nation building could work to turn a problem region to a more stable one

The last time I checked, there was no "quick victory" in Afghanistan, given that the fighting there has been going on since America invaded the country October 2001. Rather, according to CNN it's the longest war in US history:

Washington (CNN, 27 May 2014) – With combat operations in Afghanistan ending this year... more than a decade of war — the longest in American history

To suggest that US recently attempted "nation building could work to turn a problem region to a more stable one" was problematic, given the unstable "region" situations in today's Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Rather, it would appear that the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq helped destabilize the "region."

Amerika wrote: »

Man, was anyone else alive and paying attention during the reasons given by the GWB administration for going to war with Iraq?

GW Bush gave the Axis of Evil speech, and then attacked Iraq shortly after. He named 2 other nations in the Axis, Iran and North Korea, which he included because they too were claimed to be:

Amerika wrote: »

sponsor terrorism and continued to be a threat to his neighboring countries...

...providing sanctuary for terrorists... and numerous violations of U.N. sanctions and resolutions...

But unlike Iraq where Cheney, Powell, and GW Bush misled Congress and the American people to believe (during post-911 political hysteria) that there was significant and factual evidence of WMD as a pretext for the 2nd Persian Gulf War, North Korea had been supporting terrorism, was under a cruel dictatorship, and actually had WMD (atomic bomb) which they tested in 2006, and continue to test (not a Cheney-Powell-Bush fiction). Plus they are attempting to develop and have been testing a missile delivery system that may directly threaten the US someday, a capability that Iraq never had. So if GW Bush was to attack a member of his Axis of Evil, why not first attack the greatest direct threat to the territorial US, North Korea rather than Iraq?

Yes, the Congressional Democrats voted for the 2nd Persian Gulf War, as did the Congressional Republicans, both of whom had been misled by the GW Bush administration.

Jonny7

Black Swan wrote: »

So if GW Bush was to attack a member of his Axis of Evil, why not first attack the greatest direct threat to the territorial US, North Korea rather than Iraq?

N Korea has never been much of a realistic threat to the US. They don't have any significant imperial ambitions, the S Korean army is remarkably powerful and the WMD/enormous military the dear leader has under him is more to keep the Kim dynasty in power than anything else

The North Koreans used (and still use) the threat of force to receive concessions, essentially all bark and no bite - they have "piped" down recently due to a stronger regional stance and the US and (their only ally) the Chinese jointly clamping down on concessions.

The Bush admin saw an opportunity to use 911 to evict a dictator, but they chose Saddam mainly because they had a bone to pick, he emerged from '91 as the "victor", he was a thorn in the US side as well as regionally, he was brutal to his own people (but no more so than the Kim dynasty) and his removal was supposed to mark the cornerstone of a very controversial doctrine - essentially democracy through force - which we wll know failed pretty miserably

Also logistical/geographical/military reasons - Iraq was much easier to attack than N Korea

Iraq ticked all the Rove/Cheney boxes, NK did not

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

The last time I checked, there was no "quick victory" in Afghanistan, given that the fighting there has been going on since America invaded the country October 2001. Rather, according to CNN it's the longest war in US history:



To suggest that US recently attempted "nation building could work to turn a problem region to a more stable one" was problematic, given the unstable "region" situations in today's Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Rather, it would appear that the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq helped destabilize the "region."

You’re really going to judge the decisions made in 2003 based on current situations or what had happened subsequently... some 11 years on? I looked back at GWB’s cabinet from 2003, and couldn’t find a Director of Clairvoyance anywhere in the administration.

GW Bush gave the Axis of Evil speech, and then attacked Iraq shortly after. He named 2 other nations in the Axis, Iran and North Korea, which he included because they too were claimed to be:

Okay... Iraq was an easier target and did send the appropriate message to the region. Remember Gaddafi's reaction.

But unlike Iraq where Cheney, Powell, and GW Bush misled Congress and the American people to believe (during post-911 political hysteria) that there was significant and factual evidence of WMD as a pretext for the 2nd Persian Gulf War, North Korea had been supporting terrorism, was under a cruel dictatorship, and actually had WMD (atomic bomb) which they tested in 2006, and continue to test (not a Cheney-Powell-Bush fiction). Plus they are attempting to develop and have been testing a missile delivery system that may directly threaten the US someday, a capability that Iraq never had. So if GW Bush was to attack a member of his Axis of Evil, why not first attack the greatest direct threat to the territorial US, North Korea rather than Iraq?

Yes, the Congressional Democrats voted for the 2nd Persian Gulf War, as did the Congressional Republicans, both of whom had been misled by the GW Bush administration.

So I figure you put "the specter of WMD which most Middle Eastern governments and European intelligence agencies agreed were there" into your GOP characterization translation app and came up with "Cheney, Powell, and GW Bush misled Congress and the American people" (no other explanation I figure ). Quite something. I'll file the GWB/Cheney Lied rhetoric along side Paul Revere riding down the streets of Boston on his horse yelling "The British Are Coming." (BTW Revere was British at the time). I guess some historical fabrications last forever.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

"the specter of WMD which most Middle Eastern governments and European intelligence agencies agreed were there"

I thought European agencies were trying to warn their respective governments that evidence was very shaky, e.g. the curveball informant, yellowcake and the 45 min claim

Which Euro agencies agreed on the WMD?

Amerika

Jonny7 wrote: »

I thought European agencies were trying to warn their respective governments that evidence was very shaky, e.g. the curveball informant, yellowcake and the 45 min claim

Which Euro agencies agreed on the WMD?

As I recall, The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, an assessment by George Tenet, who was GWB’s CIA director (which had the backing of all fifteen agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States), noted that the collective views asserted with “high confidence” that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” (The famous "slam dunk")

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, France, and Israel, all agreed with this judgment.

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, France, and Israel, all agreed with this judgment.

Germany and France ("old Europe") stated they would have vetoed any attempt to use the security council to go to war in Iraq. Likewise Russia. China's position was roughly the same as France. Of the 15 UN members, only 4 openly supported military action

German and British intelligence repeatedly warned their respective governments that one of their main sources of intelligence on Iraqi biological and chemical weapon's programs was unreliable

Colin Powell has basically admitted his presentation was a load of bull****.

Karl Stein

If the US and its allies were really concerned about WMD being used by Iraq 'we' probably shouldn't have provided Saddam:

'with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programmes.'

This assistance [...] included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

commondreams.org

It should also be noted that the US, and its allies, provided Saddam with intelligence on positions of Iranian troops knowing he was using WMD.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew,"

Retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes.

foreignpolicy.com

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

You’re really going to judge the decisions made in 2003 based on current situations or what had happened subsequently... some 11 years on? I looked back at GWB’s cabinet from 2003, and couldn’t find a Director of Clairvoyance anywhere in the administration.

You are suggesting that when America nation-builds (or in the case of Iraq, rebuilds what they destroyed during Shock and Awe), you cannot expect such rebuilding to last more than a decade? Have American nation-building standards fallen sometime after the end of WWII? The Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program) helped rebuild Germany (and other nations) after the US and allies destroyed most major cities, and today Germany is one of the leading economic and democratic nations in the world. If I recall, both had harsh dictatorships that killed many of their own citizens too, and Germans in fact had tons of WMD (nerve agents), and were attempting to develop an atomic bomb; e.g., German "1938 Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann uranium 235 project", but fortunately were unsuccessful and behind the US (all facts, not Cheney-Powell-GWBush Administration spurious and misleading Iraq II War justification fantasies).

arold10

The war in Iraq has been largely a complete disaster. It's clear that the main reason all the Democrats have changed their position was because the war had taken a turn for the worse that no one foresaw. Which ultimately put them at odds with their constituents. If you are listening to speeches that were delivered by the former president George Bush, it's obvious that he believed the war would have been easy. Meaning they would have just invaded and toppled the Saddam Hussein's government and come out. Unfortunately, it was not so because it's always one thing to get into something and it's something entirely to get out.

comongethappy

arold10 wrote: »

all the Democrats have changed their position was because the war had taken a turn for the worse that no one foresaw.

I dare say decade long sectarian quagmire' was probably forseen by a lot of people.

arold10

I am sure that if they had known the war would have taken that horrible turn, they would not have gone in the first place. It was serious mistake to get involved in a war that took longer than no one has thought of. In addition, a war that ended up costing far more in term of sacrifice than expected.

ChicagoJoe

Some Democrats just don't like give awaying national security issues to Republicans. There simply isn't enough wiggle room for the IWR supporters to differentiate themselves, they would willingly sell the soul of the Dem Party for personal advantage.

InTheTrees

The democrats were politically pushed into a corner to vote to give george bush the option to use force.

It was reiterated again and again and again that he just needed the clearance to really threaten saddam. They said he couldnt even threaten saddam without the authorization.

In addition there was the implicit implication that to vote against the president when the country was being threatened (i know i know), would be unpatriotic, unamerican and people would see it as siding with saddam and thus possibly political suicide.

Who can forget our own Seattle representative Jim McDermott who had the balls to vote against it and is still as far as i know referred to as "Baghdad Jim".

The political climate was like 1933 germany. A frenzy of revenge revenge revenge. It was a creepy time to live through.

So the assertion that democrats were all gung ho for war just like the right wingers is complete nonsense.

InTheTrees

arold10 wrote: »

It's clear that the main reason all the Democrats have changed their position was because the war had taken a turn for the worse that no one foresaw.

You should really read a book about it.

InTheTrees

arold10 wrote: »

The war in Iraq has been largely a complete disaster. It's clear that the main reason all the Democrats have changed their position was because the war had taken a turn for the worse that no one foresaw. Which ultimately put them at odds with their constituents. If you are listening to speeches that were delivered by the former president George Bush, it's obvious that he believed the war would have been easy. Meaning they would have just invaded and toppled the Saddam Hussein's government and come out. Unfortunately, it was not so because it's always one thing to get into something and it's something entirely to get out.

It sounds very much like you dont even realize George Bush was a Republican not a Democrat?

InTheTrees

comongethappy wrote: »

We know the democrats voted in large part for that war.

No.

We dont.

Only 40% of them did.

Here's the breakdown of the vote:

Party /Yeas / Nays / Not Voting
Republican 215 6 2 Democratic 82 126 1 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 297 133 3

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

InTheTrees

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:

If you took the time to do any research, even just reading the wiki, you'd learn a lot.

Republicans voted for the war resolution 215 to 6
Democrats voted for the war resolution 82 to 126

Absolute garbage and nonsense to say they were "full square" behind it.

Why you'd even go off on such a rant without doing the research is mystifying.

Trying to make the republicans and the bush administration look better and spread the blame for the lies and misinformation they put out no doubt.

InTheTrees

Easy to also forget the nationalist fervour of the time.

People against the war were vilified in the right wing controlled media. Doubting the absurd claims of the bush administration meant becoming a political target.

And yet 60% of Democrats still voted against it.

But the Republicans were in control.

InTheTrees

Just to make another fact clear.

George Bush was a republican. Republicans controlled congress and the presidency.

This was their war. Their lies and obstruction.

Accusing the opposition party of the time of treason because they voted against the war is pretty much misunderstanding the basics of democracy isnt it?

InTheTrees

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

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.

Where does this garbled version of history come from? Who has planted these weird notions in your mind? And more importantly why would you ignore basic history? Just read the wiki's if nothing else.

President Johnson. Was a Democrat.

There were only 3500 US troops in Vietnam before Johnson and he grew that force up to 200,000, thus starting what we'd call the Vietnam War.

How does that fit into your historical rewrite?



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

InTheTrees

...and another thing. Before I clog up this thread completely.

Right now Dick Cheney, bush's vice president, is out doing the right wing talk shows and political shows. And he's pushing for re-invading Iraq. Seriously. There is a sizable number of Republicans who really want this.

Most now acknowledge that he was the main motivator for invading iraq, (also a major shareholder of Halliburton, the main supplier of mercenaries in iraq), so he's also trying hard to clean up his legacy which necessarily means passing the blame.

This is probably why you'll start hearing negative political spin about Democrats and their unwillingness to go to war.

arold10

InTheTrees wrote: »

It sounds very much like you dont even realize George Bush was a Republican not a Democrat?

Well, even though you are trying to defend the Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion, but they supported the war because they were convinced that Sadam was a threat to the world since he had the intent of acquiring nuclear weapon. No matter how adamant you are in defending their votes, but they voted for it anyway. However, I strongly believe the main reason that the Democrats have made a complete reversal of their position on the war was because things had taken a terrible turn for the worst back in 2007 because of a surge in the number of casualties.

Even president Obama as a state senator who sincerely opposed the war since before it started. Once, he got into the senate according to Hilary Clinton's account, he was not sure where he was to stand on that war. He even said that he liked the way George Bush was handling the war. He then voted for every legislation that was designed to fund the war.

First of all, I am not trying to defend the war. I already conceded to the fact that the decision to invade Iraq in the first place was a complete disaster as many prominent Republicans have always failed to admit. But, if you read quotes from numerous Democrats it's quite obvious that there was strong support among them for the war.

InTheTrees

Only 40% of democrats voted for it.

arold10

Well, 40% is still a sizable number. Many of them are some of the most prominent Democrats such Hilary Clinton, Christ Dodd, John Kerry, John Edward, and so on.

InTheTrees

arold10 wrote: »

No matter how adamant you are in defending their votes, but they voted for it anyway.

What??

Defending their votes? What do you mean I'm defending their votes ffs?

I'm just trying to draw some posters attention to some pretty basic History.

You said "All" the democrats changed their minds when they saw it wasnt going well which is Garbage. Nonsense.

All Democrats did not vote for the war. They were NOT "gung ho" for war. That was the Republicans who were in the majority.

InTheTrees

arold10 wrote: »

Well, 40% is still a sizable number. Many of them are some of the most prominent Democrats such Hilary Clinton, Christ Dodd, John Kerry, John Edward, and so on.

Sure.

How about the republican majority and their 215 votes for the war and only 6 against?

Compare to the Democrats voting 82 for and 126 against.

How do you feel about the thread title then?

Rubbish isnt it?

Democrats were NOT as "pro-iraq" as Republicans.

arold10

InTheTrees wrote: »

What??

You said "All" the democrats changed heir minds when they saw it wasnt going well which is Garbage. Nonense.

All Democrats did not vote for the war. They were NOT "gung ho" for war. That was the Republicans who were in the majority.

I've never mentioned that all Democrats voted in favor of the war. All you have to do is to take a closer look at the first paragraph of my initial statement. I was only referring to Democrats who both supported and voted to authorize the invasion.

You reject the notion that the Democrats changed their mind as a result of the war not going so well, but this was the case. It was quite clear back then people had fed up with a war that could easily be seen as both unnecessary and a terrible blunder. The war was progressively becoming less popular with the American people. Most importantly, it was a time as well preparations for the general election of 2008 were about to get under way.