Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation?

[TooTall]

The need to "make them pay" bought Bush a useless war in Iraq with republicans, pretty easily it turns out. Played them like a cheap made-in-china war drum.

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

What the hell does it matter at this point? You assholes got your great patriotic republican war to avenge 9/11, wait, to get the WMDs, wait, to liberate the oppressed, yeah that's the ticket.,

I knew Bush was in trouble as soon as I read these quotes from the following "great patriotic" Democrats.

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"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

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

"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 | Source

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 | Source

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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 | Source

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

 

[Statistikhengst]

Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation?

No. They believe in the politics of capitulation and appeasement.

They have tragically low self-esteem and don't want to get called big meanies, by the democrats and their army of media stooges.

Capitulation and appeasment? Really?


Hmmmm... hardly. There has never before been an oppostion party so voracious and vicious as the GOP of the last 5 years.

You live in the same universe as we do?

Oh, please.

They're all voracious and vicious, right up until the time that it comes for them to fold up like pup tents.

The question about who is living in the same universe is the height of irony.

I am getting the feeling you don't have the highest opinon of the current crop of Republicans....

 

[Mac1958]

Is that an exact quote? Gotta link?

Or are you just lying out your ass?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE[/ame]

Thank you very much. Yes, Obama did say that, but in context of quoting what a voter group, namely Latinos, might think. He did not say that HE would do it. The audio from the video makes that quite clear.

You just supported my argument. Thanks!!!

You asked for a quote, I provided it.

We can certainly pretend that he doesn't support such a strategy (although he's clearly advocating it to an important voter base), because we can pretend anything.

That's the beauty of partisan politics, just make stuff up.

.

 

[Claudette]

Yup and one has to remember the Dems make promises all the time. They get what they want and never live up to the promises that they made. If Reagan were still alive he could tell you all about it and Bush as well.

Pretending is Obamas mantra. Hell. He's pretending he's a president and has been for the last five years.

 

[Statistikhengst]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riVzMzX4hiE

Thank you very much. Yes, Obama did say that, but in context of quoting what a voter group, namely Latinos, might think. He did not say that HE would do it. The audio from the video makes that quite clear.

You just supported my argument. Thanks!!!

You asked for a quote, I provided it.

We can certainly pretend that he doesn't support such a strategy (although he's clearly advocating it to an important voter base), because we can pretend anything.

That's the beauty of partisan politics, just make stuff up.

.

Because a politician refers to it once does not mean that he advocates it. Rather, his record will tell you.

Has Obama directly exacted revenge on anyone?

Apparently, Christie has.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yup and one has to remember the Dems make promises all the time. They get what they want and never do what they promise. Reagan and Bush I could attest to that.

Pretending is Obamas mantra. Hell. He's pretending he's a president and has been for the last five years.

Well, that was fun, but fact-free.

He is not pretending. He IS the potus. He was elected - TWICE to that office.

 

[Mac1958]

Thank you very much. Yes, Obama did say that, but in context of quoting what a voter group, namely Latinos, might think. He did not say that HE would do it. The audio from the video makes that quite clear.

You just supported my argument. Thanks!!!

You asked for a quote, I provided it.

We can certainly pretend that he doesn't support such a strategy (although he's clearly advocating it to an important voter base), because we can pretend anything.

That's the beauty of partisan politics, just make stuff up.

.

Because a politician refers to it once does not mean that he advocates it. Rather, his record will tell you.

Has Obama directly exacted revenge on anyone?

Apparently, Christie has.

You can't prove or disprove either one.

But again, in partisan politics, who cares, right?

You have your side to protect, and that's what you're gonna do.

.

 

[TooTall]

Fun fact: Regime change in Iraq was voted on and made official federal policy in 1998.

Care to refresh our memory as to who the president who signed off on that was?

This actually a great point, and a true one.

Key members of what would later become Bush's defense team (Chaney, Bolton, Libby, & Wolfowitz) formed a group called PNAC (Policy for a New American Century) in the 90s. They wrote a very persuasive policy paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

Click me to read it.

This paper makes the case that the energy resources in the Middle East are so vital to the US and Global Economy that controlling this region is key to American and global security. Furthermore, they make the case, again I think persuasively, that Hussein's Iraq is the most viable territory to seize. They also point out, again very persuasively, that Hussein was leading the charge to price oil in Euros rather than dollars, which would have a devastating effect on the American economy. Essentially, Hussein, whose country Clinton had bombed and starved for 8 years, was trying to leverage middle east energy resources against the US.

Clinton was persuaded by the Neocon argument for regime change, and thus he made regime change in Iraq and official US Policy. However, he did not take action because of CIA and Defense projections that it would be impossible to stabilize the country without incurring massive expenses and casualties; moreover, the pulverization of an ancient middle eastern city and the likelihood of a high body count would only serve to create more terrorism in the future, an unintended consequence that folks from Washington never seem to understand. This is the reason Bush 41 didn't invade Baghdad in Gulf War I - because he understood the limitations of Government. However, Chaney and Bush 43 (and their loyal followers here) had far more faith in Washington (which is ironic at first glance. But if you study the policies of Republican Presidents, you realize that they grow the power and budget of Washington far more than their democratic counterparts). So Bush/Chaney used 9/11 as a context to remove Hussein in order to create a US-friendly satellite state near the world's most necessary resource. The unintended consequence is that they dumped kerosene on the housing market to create a temporary prosperity bubble so that Americans would give them a second term... where they would ensure the survival of a failed war.

Good grief, you liberal nutbars can't stop blaming Bush for everything bad that happens, even stuff from BEFORE he was president.

Be that as it may, Clinton didn't need to be persuaded. He had kept Bush 41's policies regarding Iraq in full force for the entire 8 years of his presidency. Likewise, those policies were used as a convenient shield (i.e. tossing a few cruise missiles at Baghdad) whenever he felt the need to get his zipper off the front pages of newspapers. Moreover, the list of democrats who were beating the war drum in 1998 is so long and well known, that posting the quotes from the various political figures would be a dreary exercise in redundancy.

I posted some of the quotes from Democrats in 2002, 2003 and now realize that is was a wasted excercise. All of those I quoted voted for the war in Iraq, but when it became unpopular, they turned on Bush because scumbags is what they are.

 

[Claudette]

Yup and one has to remember the Dems make promises all the time. They get what they want and never do what they promise. Reagan and Bush I could attest to that.

Pretending is Obamas mantra. Hell. He's pretending he's a president and has been for the last five years.

Well, that was fun, but fact-free.

He is not pretending. He IS the potus. He was elected - TWICE to that office.

Well your right. He does hold the office of POTUS but he's pretending he knows what he's doing. Hell. My dog could do a better job.

 

[Claudette]

Thank you very much. Yes, Obama did say that, but in context of quoting what a voter group, namely Latinos, might think. He did not say that HE would do it. The audio from the video makes that quite clear.

You just supported my argument. Thanks!!!

You asked for a quote, I provided it.

We can certainly pretend that he doesn't support such a strategy (although he's clearly advocating it to an important voter base), because we can pretend anything.

That's the beauty of partisan politics, just make stuff up.

.

Because a politician refers to it once does not mean that he advocates it. Rather, his record will tell you.

Has Obama directly exacted revenge on anyone?

Apparently, Christie has.

Kinda sorta funny that the mayor in question has said publicaly that he was never asked to donate to Christie.

Guess your idea that Christie was vengeful is bullshit.

 

[NLT]

Hoboken NJ suffered major structural damage because of Sandy, worse than the majority of cities in NJ. The city was 80% under water. The mayor of Hoboken, Dawn Zimmer, scheduled a meeting to discuss getting a small portion of NJ's massive Federal Relief Fund, which was supposed to be allocated judiciously based on need. The meeting turned into a solicitation by the Christie administration for an endorsement for the upcoming election. The mayor of Hoboken, a democrat, said she would remain neutral, though she wanted to support a Democrat. Out of respect/fear for Christie, she endorsed nobody. She reports that Christie “was quite disappointed”. The mayor of Hoboken went on to say that Christie kept asking for a public endorsement (for the upcoming election), almost if it was a "pay to play" deal. Then, because the mayor of Hoboken chose to actively and openly support Christie, her city only received 1% of what it asked for, which has left it terribly in debt. Meanwhile some cities inland, supporters of Christie, received more than they requested or needed.

Christie’s retaliation on Hoboken hurt innocent citizens who not only had to endure massive delays in getting repairs, but their city now faces terrible revenue problems, the consequences of which will plague the city for quite a while.

The new mayor of Jersey City NJ Steve Fulop, also a Democrat, scheduled a number of meetings with state officials. These meetings were intended to establish working relationships with agencies that provide necessary services to his city and its citizens. One of the meetings was scheduled to obtain relief funds for Hurricane Sandy. Once the meetings were fixed on the calendar, the Christie team solicited Fulop’s endorsement. Like the Democratic mayor of Hoboken, Fulop declined, knowing full well that he could not turn his back on his party. Within the hour of notifying the Christie team that he would be unable to provide an endorsement, the various state officials called to cancel all meetings, with no promise to re-schedule.

Christie’s retaliation on Jersey City hurt innocent citizens.

It appears that Christie created a very punitive “pay to play” retaliation machine. Either you kiss his ring, or he hurts the innocent Americans in your district. Thank god this guy's presidential run is over.

My question: is there a culture within the Republican Party that fosters partisan retaliation and the abuse of government power, or, is this an exception to the rule? Discuss.

They learned it from the Clintons

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama goes after conservatives with the IRS, and closes national parks and he's not retaliating? He cuts off benefits for family members for dead soldiers and he's not retaliating?

 

[rdean]

Republicans are punishing America for having the nerve to elect a black man as president - twice. Republicans have warned us of what they would do. And they have kept their word.

 

[rdean]

Obama goes after conservatives with the IRS, and closes national parks and he's not retaliating? He cuts off benefits for family members for dead soldiers and he's not retaliating?

Still trying that IRS thing? Issa has been releasing partial transcripts to try to make the Obama administration look bad.

But

Oops

Against Issa's wishes, that dern Elijah Cummings went and released the ENTIRE transcript. Fucking Hilarious!

Elijah Cummings Releases IRS Transcript - Darrell Issa Gets Played - Esquire

Bucking Issa, Cummings releases IRS transcript | MSNBC

Why do you think there has been nothing new on this since June? Republicans feel they've done the damage and all they need to do is scream, "IRS IRS IRS" and Americans have been properly fooled.

Only it doesn't work anymore. Except on your kind.

The rest of us know.

 

[chikenwing]

The need to "make them pay" bought Bush a useless war in Iraq with republicans, pretty easily it turns out. Played them like a cheap made-in-china war drum.

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

Their plan was to be for it until it was politically convenient to be against it. Then do what they could to see failure. Simple plan not hard to implement

 

[RandomVariable]

The need to "make them pay" bought Bush a useless war in Iraq with republicans, pretty easily it turns out. Played them like a cheap made-in-china war drum.

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

Their plan was to be for it until it was politically convenient to be against it. Then do what they could to see failure. Simple plan not hard to implement

Let's see Bush drums up false support for the war and the American public is for it. The American public, most anyway, learned that the reasons for the war were all lies and are against it. The Democratic policy seemed to follow the American public's will whereas the Republican policy was to lie and then blame.

 

[blackhawk]

No more than there is in the Democratic Party.

 

[mudwhistle]

What was the Democrat plan for Iraq?

Their plan was to be for it until it was politically convenient to be against it. Then do what they could to see failure. Simple plan not hard to implement

Let's see Bush drums up false support for the war and the American public is for it. The American public, most anyway, learned that the reasons for the war were all lies and are against it. The Democratic policy seemed to follow the American public's will whereas the Republican policy was to lie and then blame.

The Dems politicized the war.

 

[westwall]

Yup and one has to remember the Dems make promises all the time. They get what they want and never do what they promise. Reagan and Bush I could attest to that.

Pretending is Obamas mantra. Hell. He's pretending he's a president and has been for the last five years.

Well, that was fun, but fact-free.

He is not pretending. He IS the potus. He was elected - TWICE to that office.

That is true, however the IRS interference with the Tea Party groups is troubling because that helped him get his second election. Had they not been interfered with his reelection is seriously in doubt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course "Do Republicans believe in the politics of retaliation", just as do the Democrats.