Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[JimH52]

Democrats voted for the war too. It was bi-partisan.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives
Party Yeas Nays Not Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

United States Senate
Party Yeas Nays
Republican 48 1
Democratic 29 21
Independent 0 1
TOTALS 77 23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case closed.

And everyone knows the votes were based on cooked books and cherry picked facts. DICK needed to help hi pals at Halliburton....

 

[whutTHEYsay]

And everyone knows the votes were based on cooked books and cherry picked facts.

And everyone should know that the intelligence gathered prior to the vote for the AUMF in October 2002 whether cooked up or not, was not the intelligence that Bush claimed to have on March 17 2003 that the deadliest weapons ever devised were being hidden from the 2003 inspectors. All that pre-vote intelligence was handed over to those inspectors and it all came up empty. Bush claims to have acquired intelligence between March 10 2003 and March 17 2003 that left no doubt lethal WMD stockpiles were being hidden. So Bush lied long after the vote in October which can be proven by the fact that when the military went in the did not know where the stockpiles were being hidden.

How could Bush have no doubt that WMD were being hidden by Iraq if the intelligence Bush cited did not know where it was being hidden.

Bush lied to both sides in a bipartisan lie. The vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush43 lying to the entire world during March 2003.

 

[Coyote]

I don't know, do the Democrats regret their Libyan fiasco?

We invaded Libya in the name of regime change?

 

[Zander]

Hillary voted for it. Does she regret her vote?

Sorry LWNJ's , as much fun as revisionist history is, it's still fiction. The Iraq war had bi-partisan support. PERIOD.

 

[Coyote]

Hillary voted for it. Does she regret her vote?

Sorry LWNJ's , as much fun as revisionist history is, it's still fiction. The Iraq war had bi-partisan support. PERIOD.

82 out of 126 DemocRats voted "yea" in the House.
29 out of 50 DemocRat voted "yea" in the Senate.

Only 3 (combined) RePuglicans voted "nay".

an absolutely COWARDLY showing by the Democrats. No surprise for the Republicans.

We will be paying for this piss poor stupid decision for decades.

I admire those who had the cajones to say "NO".

 

[whutTHEYsay]

We invaded Libya in the name of regime change?

Libya was not a ground invasion and a five year occupation with American troops bogged down in the midst of never resolved sectarian warfare and insurgency.

The Libya NFZ was set up by the UN Security Council a a UNSC Resolution was passed to allow member states to enforce it. The Iraq invasion was committed in flagrant violation of the UNSC Resolution 1441.

There was no potential genocide to prevent in Iraq when Bush invaded as there was in Libya. All Gadhaffi had to do was ordered his armored units to cease firing upon and approaching civilian populations with the intent to fire upon them and Gadhaffi would not have been targeted.

 

[JimH52]

Hillary voted for it. Does she regret her vote?

Sorry LWNJ's , as much fun as revisionist history is, it's still fiction. The Iraq war had bi-partisan support. PERIOD.

She probably does wish that she had not believed everything the recovering alcoholic handed out. Inspectors on the ground could not find any of W's WMD, and yet we still invaded. Then Halliburton cheered!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I admire those who had the cajones to say "NO".

Those who voted no were in safe anti war districts or states and their no votes would not have prevented Bush going into Iraq anyway. The no vote would have skipped the attempt at peaceful resolution through the UN and Bush would not be the liar that he is today when he told all the members of Congress that he needed authority to decide if war was necessary to force Iraq into allowing the inspectors to come back in and resolve the WMD issue peacefully.

Bush was going into Iraq and would have done it based on the war on terror authorization used it invade Afghanistan. A yes vote was to get inspectors in and take Bush at his word that war could then be avoided. Bush's word was rotten. I can't blame anyone but Bush for that. No one should.

Go back and read the authorization and check the fact that the US and UK were intensely bombing Iraq through the summer of 2002. Then Bush changed his policy to going through the UN to see if war could be avoided.

 

[Zander]

Bipartisan =

bi·par·ti·san
bīˈpärdəzən/
adjective
adjective: bipartisan; adjective: bi-partisan

1. of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies.
   "the Iraq war had considerable bipartisan approval"

Sorry LWNJ's - you're attempts to revise history are not working. The Iraq war had bipartisan support. Hillary, the "presumptive nominee", voted for it.

 

[Coyote]

Doesn't matter if it had bipartisan support - was still the biggest **** up in American history. It NEVER had my support. Never.

 

[Zander]

Doesn't matter if it had bipartisan support - was still the biggest **** up in American history. It NEVER had my support. Never.

You're not assigning 100% of the blame to Republicans either.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do." HRC on MTP Jan 13, 2008

She probably does wish that she had not believed everything the recovering alcoholic handed out.

She said so herself to Tim Russert on MTP.

.
Interview with Tim Russert on NBC News' "Meet the Press"
Hillary Clinton Interview with Tim Russert on NBC News Meet the Press
Jan 13, 2008 - RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS. ... Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on ... He didn't introduce legislation against the war in Iraq. ..... If you remember, he said this vote was the best chance to avoid some kind of confrontation.

Excerpts from MTP

.
RUSSERT: The title of the act was The Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution.

CLINTON: But, you know, Tim, that was exactly what would happen if we weren't successful with the diplomacy and if we weren't successful in persuading Hussein to do something. And let me just add here that when we were moving toward the preemptive war that George Bush decided to wage, the inspectors were in Iraq, we were getting information, finally, that would give us a basis for knowing. I believe if the inspectors had been allowed to do their work, we would've learned that what Saddam Hussein had constructed was a charade. It could've very well brought him down by his own people.

Now, we can sit here and argue about 2002 or we can say what has happened since and what needs to happen going forward in the future. And I think that you have two different story lines here. You have Senator Obama's story line, the speech he gave in '02, to his credit, which then was not followed up on. By '03, it was off his Web site. By '04, he was saying he didn't know he would vote and that he basically agreed with George Bush on the conduct of the war. There were others, Tim, who voted against it, spoke out against it and never wavered over that period of time.

RUSSERT: But you voted for all the funding for the war.

CLINTON: I did. I never--I'm not premising my campaign on something different.

RUSSERT: And then until '06 was against the timetable.

CLINTON: But I did what I--my principle concern has always been doing what I thought was best for our country and what I thought was best for our troops. I'm not here saying anything different than that. I'm not giving you a story line that does not hold up...

RUSSERT: But did he have better...

CLINTON: ...under the facts and the times we were in.

RUSSERT: Did he have better judgment in October of 2002?

CLINTON: You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career.

RUSSERT: A vote for war is a very important vote.

CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do. Now, I think it's important to take a look at the entire context here. If Senator Obama's going to get credit for his speech and his position against the war, then he deserves to be asked what happened in '03, '04, '05, '06 and '07. I voted for the authorization...

Since HRC claims she asked and was told directly by the White House -that's exactly what they intended to do in response to her question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job" then it should be fair game in the upcoming election to ferret out exactly who told her that and why they did not follow through when Iraq allowed the inspectors to return. Don't you think?

 

[Zander]

^^^^^^^
hiLIARy spinning her web of lies....you LWNJ's are so gullible....Hope and change!!!

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Do you mean when Hillary Clinton voted for it? You should ask her? Better yet...try learning some history before you post. It would really help to have a factual conversation with a liberal. In fact, it would actually be a first for me.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

an absolutely COWARDLY showing by the Democrats. No surprise for the Republicans.

It was not cowardly to vote yes because at the time of the vote Saddam Hussein was in violation of 16 UNSC Resolutions most having to do with whether or not he possessed and was producing weapons of mass destruction. Just a year after the 9/11 attacks it was a legitimate US national security concern that Chemical weapons produced in Iraq could end up in the hands of terrorists with the intent of killing more American than they did with airliners.

Once the inspectors went in under the unanimous UN Res 1441 that threat was removed. And the stupid decision to chase inspectors out in order to start a war to find WMD was regrettably made.

What occurred between the October 2002 vote and the March 2003 decision for war has been regrettably ignored by all sides. I know why Republicans don't wish to talk about UN inspections but I've never understood why Democrats don't talk about them much either.

The inspections were working and war would have been avoided and the same result would have been achieved. Iraq would have been verified to be disarmed and tens of thousands of lives not lost and most of what's going on right now in the region would not be taking place.

And this family would not have been wiped out by US bombs at the start of it all.

058 Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

 

[Dot Com]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

You silly You know repubs never admit mistakes

 

[whutTHEYsay]

^^^^^^^
hiLIARy spinning her web of lies....

Do you have any evidence that HRC was lying on MTP when on national TV she accused the Bush White House of essentially lying to her prior to the Iraq AUMF "if necessary' vote when she said this:

"CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do." HRC on MTP Jan 13, 2008.

Do you recall that Cheney did not want to go the UN route but Bush over-ruled him. Cheney wanted to go directly to war and to never give peaceful inspections a chance. Cheney saw the risk that inspectors would not find what the White House and the flimsy intelligence they had would be proven to be flawed and improbable.

If the October 2002 AUMF was a true authorization for war like Cheney wanted why did a Bush send Colin Powell to the UN to negotiate Res 1441 and get it passed within a month?

Also there was no pushback on HRCs statement by the White House. So there is no record that she lied on MTP.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Rdean, wishes saddam was still in power torturing and murdering his people. What a caring liberal.

Watch, ,now as he bends his argument to have it both ways.

The owl finds himself unable to answer the OP. "Eureka" he thought, "I will change the subject and also accuse him of something to put him on the defensive"

As he types he nervously wonders if anyone will notice his attempted derailing of the subject

You are as stupid as theoldhagschool.

 

[AmericanFirst]

^^^^^^^
hiLIARy spinning her web of lies....

Do you have any evidence that HRC was lying on MTP when on national TV she accused the Bush White House of essentially lying to her prior to the Iraq AUMF "if necessary' vote when she said this:

"CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, we can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant. You know, when Chuck Hagel, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was not a vote for war, when I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, "if you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job," I was told that's exactly what we intended to do." HRC on MTP Jan 13, 2008.

Do you recall that Cheney did not want to go the UN route but Bush over-ruled him. Cheney wanted to go directly to war and to never give peaceful inspections a chance. Cheney saw the risk that inspectors would not find what the White House and the flimsy intelligence they had would be proven to be flawed and improbable.

If the October 2002 AUMF was a true authorization for war like Cheney wanted why did a Bush send Colin Powell to the UN to negotiate Res 1441 and get it passed within a month?

Also there was no pushback on HRCs statement by the White House. So there is no record that she lied on MTP.

If Clinton talked you can bet she lied.

 

[Kondor3]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

Of course they do...

About as much as the Democrats regret their Vietnam fiasco...