Democrat leader stupidity caused Iraq war

pvsi

VIP Member
Nov 17, 2013
2,527
116
85
I am only trying to balance out the BS, the half truth of the other thread. many blame criminal Bush, but reality is that if political whores such as Hillary Clinton and other "anti war" democrats would not have voted to authorize Bush's war, the war would have never happened. And as a true American I am irritated to see ignorance on the media and the forums, trolls blaming one side of the two side problem. this statement can not be argued unfortunately, and as such it will sink, while the crap and the half truths will be fed by replies and arguments, and it will float.
 
I am only trying to balance out the BS, the half truth of the other thread. many blame criminal Bush, but reality is that if political whores such as Hillary Clinton and other "anti war" democrats would not have voted to authorize Bush's war, the war would have never happened. And as a true American I am irritated to see ignorance on the media and the forums, trolls blaming one side of the two side problem. this statement can not be argued unfortunately, and as such it will sink, while the crap and the half truths will be fed by replies and arguments, and it will float.
========================================
the media is NOT ignorant or stupid, i see the Lame stream media as complicit in laying ALL the blame at Bush's feet, the libercrat politicians who voted FOR that war are lying their asses off about their vote which is now recorded in history.

as for this forum, we on the right side of truth and honesty know in advance the liberdummies will defend their "gods" to the end of time. :up:
 
I am only trying to balance out the BS, the half truth of the other thread. many blame criminal Bush, but reality is that if political whores such as Hillary Clinton and other "anti war" democrats would not have voted to authorize Bush's war, the war would have never happened. And as a true American I am irritated to see ignorance on the media and the forums, trolls blaming one side of the two side problem. this statement can not be argued unfortunately, and as such it will sink, while the crap and the half truths will be fed by replies and arguments, and it will float.
========================================
the media is NOT ignorant or stupid, i see the Lame stream media as complicit in laying ALL the blame at Bush's feet, the libercrat politicians who voted FOR that war are lying their asses off about their vote which is now recorded in history.

as for this forum, we on the right side of truth and honesty know in advance the liberdummies will defend their "gods" to the end of time. :up:
Just remember this: if you give welfare families a piece of land and take away their welfare, they will become human beings just like you and me very quickly. never forget. we are all the same soul experiencing life from a different perspective.
 
many blame criminal Bush, but reality is that if political whores such as Hillary Clinton and other "anti war" democrats would not have voted to authorize Bush's war, the war would have never happened.

The premise of your argument is not verifiable. Bush did not adhere to the AUMF language that required him to use military force in order to "enforce relevant UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq". If you believe Bush was enforcing the ultra-relevant Final UN Security Council Resolution 1441, then you are sadly mistaken to be using the Bush coddlers and invasion proponent's talking points to blame anyone besides Bush's decision to disregard 1441 and invade Iraq anyway.
 
Can someone tell me where people like Al Sharpner, Jesse Jackson, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan would be today without the publicity of the mass media?
many blame criminal Bush, but reality is that if political whores such as Hillary Clinton and other "anti war" democrats would not have voted to authorize Bush's war, the war would have never happened.

The premise of your argument is not verifiable. Bush did not adhere to the AUMF language that required him to use military force in order to "enforce relevant UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq". If you believe Bush was enforcing the ultra-relevant Final UN Security Council Resolution 1441, then you are sadly mistaken to be using the Bush coddlers and invasion proponent's talking points to blame anyone besides Bush's decision to disregard 1441 and invade Iraq anyway.
Unfortunately I don't understand what you are talking about, but I do NOT believe Bush at all.
 
No, the shadow of 9-11 and the imminent potentially catastrophic threat posed by Iraq is what got a unified America into that invasion.
The unpredicted chaotic aftermath became a political opportunity for stuck-in-the-60's democrats to recreate a Vietnam anti-war sentiment. Obama rode that wave into proclamations of ending involvement there and his removal of a deterrent after we had controlled that situation militarily has led to the catastrophe that is now at our feet.
Time for you insulated white democrats to help us push for gentrifying the White House. Immediately.
 
Unfortunately I don't understand what you are talking about, but I do NOT believe Bush at all.

The AUMF is the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq that was voted on and passed in October 2002. I was referring to the language in it that Bush did not adhere to. Mainly that Bush was authorized to use military for for only two reasons. The one he did not adhere to was the one that he was required to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed the following month in November 2002 and it Bush agreed to it, and it stipulated that Iraq was to be given one final opportunity to comply with all the UNSC resolutions that had been passed since 1991.

So when I wrote, "If you believe Bush was enforcing the ultra-relevant Final UN Security Council Resolution 1441" that is what I referred to . I don't think you believe that he was. But I was trying to make a point. Perhaps you didn't know what UNSC Res 1441 was all about or the AUMF.

Well here's your chance to know.
 
Unfortunately I don't understand what you are talking about, but I do NOT believe Bush at all.

The AUMF is the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq that was voted on and passed in October 2002. I was referring to the language in it that Bush did not adhere to. Mainly that Bush was authorized to use military for for only two reasons. The one he did not adhere to was the one that he was required to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions.

UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed the following month in November 2002 and it Bush agreed to it, and it stipulated that Iraq was to be given one final opportunity to comply with all the UNSC resolutions that had been passed since 1991.

So when I wrote, "If you believe Bush was enforcing the ultra-relevant Final UN Security Council Resolution 1441" that is what I referred to . I don't think you believe that he was. But I was trying to make a point. Perhaps you didn't know what UNSC Res 1441 was all about or the AUMF.

Well here's your chance to know.
I did not read neither the resolution authorizing US invasion of Iraq, nor the 1000+page Obama care and other documents written by politicians
 
No, the shadow of 9-11 and the imminent potentially catastrophic threat posed by Iraq is what got a unified America into that invasion.

That premise of your argument contains a huge error. The shadow of 9-11 did not 'unify' America into the US invasion of Iraq. After the invasion started Americans generally unite. But prior to the invasion, Americans were nearly 6 in 10 only favored doing it only WITH UNSC authorization and the same margin favored giving the UN inspectors in Iraq more time to finish disarming Iraq peacefully. There was no majority that supported the US going in without the UN and a broad coalition of nations. Six of ten Americans (mostly democrats) were much wiser than Bush turned out to be on the issue of disarming Iraq peacefully.

So your argument is flawed from the start. Do you care to comment?
 
I did not read neither the resolution authorizing US invasion of Iraq, nor the 1000+page Obama care and other documents written by politicians

That is too bad. The AUMF has only about one or two paragraphs that make my point. The UNSC 1441 has perhaps four or five that matter. But when you accuse people of doing something stupid on Iraq, you would be well advised to at least be familiar with the documents that they used and were significant factors on why Bush failed to do what the politicians like Clinton and Kerry expected him to do. They did not expect him to lie if the UN inspections should have happened to be working - as they were.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top