Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
I agree that democrats were duped on this.....but tell me, in your evangelical bible, who is MORE at fault, the swindler or the swindled?
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
Was it a declaration of war or was it an authorization to use military force if the President decides that Iraq was a threat to the USA that UNSC actions were not effectively dealing with, or if Iraq was found to have participated in the 9-11 attacks?
Furthermore over half the Democrats in Congress vote against giving President Bush the deciding power.
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
I agree that democrats were duped on this.....but tell me, in your evangelical bible, who is MORE at fault, the swindler or the swindled?
So dems are stupid enough to be "duped" into a war?
Thanks for clearing that up.....
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
About every 3 months we have to remind the lying dishonest libs their leaders in congress authorized military action and ran around trying to get their faces on tv to look tough for voting Yes. At one point Dem's in congress demanded a 2nd vote on this so that more of them could vote Yes. And when they took control of the House AND the Senate in 2007 did they cut the funding for the war? No.
I'm not saying invading Iraq was right or wrong, I'm saying lying low life scum liberals who now try to pretend their leaders had nothing to do with it is a big fat lie.
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
About every 3 months we have to remind the lying dishonest libs their leaders in congress authorized military action and ran around trying to get their faces on tv to look tough for voting Yes. At one point Dem's in congress demanded a 2nd vote on this so that more of them could vote Yes. And when they took control of the House AND the Senate in 2007 did they cut the funding for the war? No.
I'm not saying invading Iraq was right or wrong, I'm saying lying low life scum liberals who now try to pretend their leaders had nothing to do with it is a big fat lie.
Yeah, and there are these gems:
“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 USA 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
“We 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
It was a paradise under Saddam...the Sunnis and Shiia were as one......yo...There may still be a few neocons in the U.S. (Dick Cheney, for example) who will justify the devastating decision by the GWB administration to attack and invade Iraq......Not only has the downfall of Hussein emboldened and empowered Iran, but the sectarian divide that had always existed has now transformed into a huge chasm and the domino theory (once used as an excuse for our war in Vietnam) is in full reality-mode as Syria, Yemen, Libya and several African countries fall to all-out civil wars.
The following excerpt is from The Atlantic...a credible source.....adn relays the words of actual citizens of that region who now see NO hope for a return to a unified Iraq.
Iraq Is Finished The Atlantic
The conversation soon turned to Daesh (known as ISIS in the West), and how the group had formed. A common view I’ve heard in the region, propagated by Sunni and Shiite alike, is that Daesh is the creation of the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq or Islamic State before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Therefore, so the twisted reasoning goes, the United States must have deliberately created the group in order to make Sunnis and Shiites fight each other, thereby allowing the U.S to continue dominating the region. Local media had reported on alleged U.S. airdrops to Daesh. Some outlets even referred to Daesh's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an Israeli-trained Mossad agent.
One of my dining companions asked me where I thought the group came from. I responded that Daesh was a symptom of a much larger problem.Regional sectarian conflict was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War and the manner in which the United States had left the country, both of which had empowered Iran and changed the balance of power in the Middle East. In my view, regional competition—of which Iran versus Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension—exacerbated existing fault lines. Those countries’ support for extreme sectarian actors in different countries had now turned local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars. Iran was funding and training Shiite militias, as well as advising regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. Gulf financing had flowed to Sunni fighters, including the ones that ultimately became Daesh. At the same time, there was a symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites in Iraq and terrorists—they justified each other's existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
Azzam’s was only one of numerous explanations of Daesh’s origins and power that I heard from Iraqis during my visit to Jordan. All of these explanations contained some truth: There was no one simple reason, but rather a complex set of factors, that had enabled the group to take control of so much of Iraq.
But I had a more basic question: "Who are Daesh?" Many, he told me, had come out of the town of Tal Afar, where there had been bitter fighting between the Sunni and Shiite populations during the civil war. They were former Baathists, members of Saddam Hussein’s party who had been purged from Iraq’s government following the international intervention to oust Hussein. Then, after 2003, some became al-Qaeda, and now they were Daesh. They felt excluded and marginalized. Daesh gave them a sense of empowerment and let them present themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis against Shiites, Iran, and the United States.
"Iraq is finished," he lamented to me. "There is no state left. It is a state of militias.”
Oh, you mean the war that Democrats lined up to vote for... like, twice? THAT Iraq war?
Was it a declaration of war or was it an authorization to use military force if the President decides that Iraq was a threat to the USA that UNSC actions were not effectively dealing with, or if Iraq was found to have participated in the 9-11 attacks?
Furthermore over half the Democrats in Congress vote against giving President Bush the deciding power.
It was officially called "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"
Here's the vote count....
Sens. Lincoln .(D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
- 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ), Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), and Feingold (D-WI).
- 42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:
It was a paradise under Saddam...the Sunnis and Shiia were as one......yo...There may still be a few neocons in the U.S. (Dick Cheney, for example) who will justify the devastating decision by the GWB administration to attack and invade Iraq......Not only has the downfall of Hussein emboldened and empowered Iran, but the sectarian divide that had always existed has now transformed into a huge chasm and the domino theory (once used as an excuse for our war in Vietnam) is in full reality-mode as Syria, Yemen, Libya and several African countries fall to all-out civil wars.
The following excerpt is from The Atlantic...a credible source.....adn relays the words of actual citizens of that region who now see NO hope for a return to a unified Iraq.
Iraq Is Finished The Atlantic
The conversation soon turned to Daesh (known as ISIS in the West), and how the group had formed. A common view I’ve heard in the region, propagated by Sunni and Shiite alike, is that Daesh is the creation of the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq or Islamic State before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Therefore, so the twisted reasoning goes, the United States must have deliberately created the group in order to make Sunnis and Shiites fight each other, thereby allowing the U.S to continue dominating the region. Local media had reported on alleged U.S. airdrops to Daesh. Some outlets even referred to Daesh's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an Israeli-trained Mossad agent.
One of my dining companions asked me where I thought the group came from. I responded that Daesh was a symptom of a much larger problem.Regional sectarian conflict was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War and the manner in which the United States had left the country, both of which had empowered Iran and changed the balance of power in the Middle East. In my view, regional competition—of which Iran versus Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension—exacerbated existing fault lines. Those countries’ support for extreme sectarian actors in different countries had now turned local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars. Iran was funding and training Shiite militias, as well as advising regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. Gulf financing had flowed to Sunni fighters, including the ones that ultimately became Daesh. At the same time, there was a symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites in Iraq and terrorists—they justified each other's existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
Azzam’s was only one of numerous explanations of Daesh’s origins and power that I heard from Iraqis during my visit to Jordan. All of these explanations contained some truth: There was no one simple reason, but rather a complex set of factors, that had enabled the group to take control of so much of Iraq.
But I had a more basic question: "Who are Daesh?" Many, he told me, had come out of the town of Tal Afar, where there had been bitter fighting between the Sunni and Shiite populations during the civil war. They were former Baathists, members of Saddam Hussein’s party who had been purged from Iraq’s government following the international intervention to oust Hussein. Then, after 2003, some became al-Qaeda, and now they were Daesh. They felt excluded and marginalized. Daesh gave them a sense of empowerment and let them present themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis against Shiites, Iran, and the United States.
"Iraq is finished," he lamented to me. "There is no state left. It is a state of militias.”
Look bud, I can admit that Iraq has resulted in terrible consequences. I can also admit that no one had a crystal ball and that the decision based on the details known at the time was the correct one.Here's a "fact" for you Nat....
Sadam Hussein violated the cease fire agreement NINETEEN FUCKING TIMES
Yeah.....and they also had weapons of mass destruction?
Sure, the nerve of Hussein to object to our decade long mandates to split the country into 3 parts with no-fly zones to 2/3 of his country....
Besides, look at how many sanctions have been cast on Israel's infractions......should we be invading THAT country also?
Well, I can appreciate the come-lately honesty that most of us now admit that Iraq is a colossal failure...But exactly what were those DETAILS that drew us into a war?
Always remember that when Bush decided to label 3 countries the "axis of evil"......most sane people knew that he had all intentions to take us into yet another costly (in lives and treasury) war to benefit the neocons.
It was a paradise under Saddam...the Sunnis and Shiia were as one......yo...There may still be a few neocons in the U.S. (Dick Cheney, for example) who will justify the devastating decision by the GWB administration to attack and invade Iraq......Not only has the downfall of Hussein emboldened and empowered Iran, but the sectarian divide that had always existed has now transformed into a huge chasm and the domino theory (once used as an excuse for our war in Vietnam) is in full reality-mode as Syria, Yemen, Libya and several African countries fall to all-out civil wars.
The following excerpt is from The Atlantic...a credible source.....adn relays the words of actual citizens of that region who now see NO hope for a return to a unified Iraq.
Iraq Is Finished The Atlantic
The conversation soon turned to Daesh (known as ISIS in the West), and how the group had formed. A common view I’ve heard in the region, propagated by Sunni and Shiite alike, is that Daesh is the creation of the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq or Islamic State before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Therefore, so the twisted reasoning goes, the United States must have deliberately created the group in order to make Sunnis and Shiites fight each other, thereby allowing the U.S to continue dominating the region. Local media had reported on alleged U.S. airdrops to Daesh. Some outlets even referred to Daesh's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an Israeli-trained Mossad agent.
One of my dining companions asked me where I thought the group came from. I responded that Daesh was a symptom of a much larger problem.Regional sectarian conflict was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War and the manner in which the United States had left the country, both of which had empowered Iran and changed the balance of power in the Middle East. In my view, regional competition—of which Iran versus Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension—exacerbated existing fault lines. Those countries’ support for extreme sectarian actors in different countries had now turned local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars. Iran was funding and training Shiite militias, as well as advising regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. Gulf financing had flowed to Sunni fighters, including the ones that ultimately became Daesh. At the same time, there was a symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites in Iraq and terrorists—they justified each other's existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
Azzam’s was only one of numerous explanations of Daesh’s origins and power that I heard from Iraqis during my visit to Jordan. All of these explanations contained some truth: There was no one simple reason, but rather a complex set of factors, that had enabled the group to take control of so much of Iraq.
But I had a more basic question: "Who are Daesh?" Many, he told me, had come out of the town of Tal Afar, where there had been bitter fighting between the Sunni and Shiite populations during the civil war. They were former Baathists, members of Saddam Hussein’s party who had been purged from Iraq’s government following the international intervention to oust Hussein. Then, after 2003, some became al-Qaeda, and now they were Daesh. They felt excluded and marginalized. Daesh gave them a sense of empowerment and let them present themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis against Shiites, Iran, and the United States.
"Iraq is finished," he lamented to me. "There is no state left. It is a state of militias.”
Why don't you just admit Iraq was won until your b
Sure I could.....but then I'd be an idiot just like you, so I won't.
there were WMDs
there were WMDs
there were WMDs
Click your heels together while you say it and the wizard of OZ will make your fantasy come true.
There may still be a few neocons in the U.S. (Dick Cheney, for example) who will justify the devastating decision by the GWB administration to attack and invade Iraq......Not only has the downfall of Hussein emboldened and empowered Iran, but the sectarian divide that had always existed has now transformed into a huge chasm and the domino theory (once used as an excuse for our war in Vietnam) is in full reality-mode as Syria, Yemen, Libya and several African countries fall to all-out civil wars.
The following excerpt is from The Atlantic...a credible source.....adn relays the words of actual citizens of that region who now see NO hope for a return to a unified Iraq.
Iraq Is Finished The Atlantic
The conversation soon turned to Daesh (known as ISIS in the West), and how the group had formed. A common view I’ve heard in the region, propagated by Sunni and Shiite alike, is that Daesh is the creation of the United States. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq or Islamic State before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Therefore, so the twisted reasoning goes, the United States must have deliberately created the group in order to make Sunnis and Shiites fight each other, thereby allowing the U.S to continue dominating the region. Local media had reported on alleged U.S. airdrops to Daesh. Some outlets even referred to Daesh's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an Israeli-trained Mossad agent.
One of my dining companions asked me where I thought the group came from. I responded that Daesh was a symptom of a much larger problem.Regional sectarian conflict was an unintended consequence of the Iraq War and the manner in which the United States had left the country, both of which had empowered Iran and changed the balance of power in the Middle East. In my view, regional competition—of which Iran versus Saudi Arabia is the main but not only dimension—exacerbated existing fault lines. Those countries’ support for extreme sectarian actors in different countries had now turned local grievances over poor governance into proxy wars. Iran was funding and training Shiite militias, as well as advising regimes in Baghdad and Damascus. Gulf financing had flowed to Sunni fighters, including the ones that ultimately became Daesh. At the same time, there was a symbiotic relationship between corrupt elites in Iraq and terrorists—they justified each other's existence, each claiming to provide protection from the other.
Azzam’s was only one of numerous explanations of Daesh’s origins and power that I heard from Iraqis during my visit to Jordan. All of these explanations contained some truth: There was no one simple reason, but rather a complex set of factors, that had enabled the group to take control of so much of Iraq.
But I had a more basic question: "Who are Daesh?" Many, he told me, had come out of the town of Tal Afar, where there had been bitter fighting between the Sunni and Shiite populations during the civil war. They were former Baathists, members of Saddam Hussein’s party who had been purged from Iraq’s government following the international intervention to oust Hussein. Then, after 2003, some became al-Qaeda, and now they were Daesh. They felt excluded and marginalized. Daesh gave them a sense of empowerment and let them present themselves as the defenders of the Sunnis against Shiites, Iran, and the United States.
"Iraq is finished," he lamented to me. "There is no state left. It is a state of militias.”
Once again... there is no problem on the Geo-political scene, which would not be immediately solved by removing the Left from the equation; with the list of problems including problems fro, systemic cultural corruption to hunger to mass-murder. Remove the Ideological Left... and the problems are solved INSTANTLY.
Once again... there is no problem on the Geo-political scene, which would not be immediately solved by removing the Left from the equation; with the list of problems including problems fro, systemic cultural corruption to hunger to mass-murder. Remove the Ideological Left... and the problems are solved INSTANTLY.
Isn't this dolt hilarious?
Come on folks, for a 9 year old, this poster is truly funny.....
Click your heels together while you say it and the wizard of OZ will make your fantasy come true.
I've used this example before about Hussein's WMDs fantasy that morons still cling to:
Picture a guy whose home is being broken into by invaders intent on killing him.......So, what does the guy do? Well, he runs into his bedroom, picks up his trusty gun...........and promptly throws it out the window to his neighbor's yard.
Makes sense??? Is that what Saddam did and sent his WMDs to Syria? He was nicer than we all thought in refusing to use his WMDs although he knew that he would hang in the hands of the Shi'a who sided with the US troops?
Right wingers can't face their own guilt-ridden consciences for backing such a monstrosity of a war.....so, they still cling to fantasies.
there were WMDs
there were WMDs
there were WMDs
Click your heels together while you say it and the wizard of OZ will make your fantasy come true.
