So, is the left denouncing Obama's "unlawful" war in Libya?

[noose4]

Oh I see party news service was right wing nut speak.

So anything that is entirely accurate is "right wing nut speak?"

Yeah, I guess that would be the case...

Entirely accurate and your description of the news networks are as far apart as one can get.

 

[Charles_Main]

I thought the Democrats supported the Iraq war, isn't that what you clowns have tried to sell for the last 8 years?

Yes, it is...

You leftist supported GOING INTO the Iraq war. Once we were there, you started with the attacks and bullshit.

Kind of the opposite of me. I loudly opposed going in, but once we did, I shut up and supported our troops.

That would be a lie. Most Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization; most liberals were against it.

You are ignorant of the facts.

So why are so many Liberals now so silent on yet another unauthorized attack?

Sure some on the left are mad at Obama for this, but it sure is far less than if a Republican were doing the same thing.

 

[Charles_Main]

Saddam massacred the **** out of his people, he gassed the Kurds and he slaughtered them and the Shia after the Gulf War in 1991, they found ******* mass graves of the victims. If our rational for this is we are trying to stop Ghaddafi from killing his people, why did we miss the bus with Saddam when he did much worse?

Well they're saying that their Oil has absolutely nothing to do with these Bombings. Supposedly it's all about the poor suffering Libyan People. Yea i think i've heard that argument a time or two in the past. Not very original stuff there. It's a Civil War. WTF are we doing getting involved? It really is fucked up.

I'm curious when US Cruise Missiles and fighter jets will be on their way to Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

Well, so far at least the Government response in Yemen and Bahrain do not measure up to what Qaddafi was doing, and what he was threatening to do. There is also the fact of our long history with Qaddafi and his sponsoring of attacks that killed Americans.

So I doubt we will be going into Bahrain or Yemen anytime soon, Unless they start using their Air forces to pound the opposition, and saying there will be no mercy.

Syria is a different story, I think we might just end up acting there as well.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most liberals did not support invading and occupying Iraq.

One more time...


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"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

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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

 

[Charles_Main]

We had no business invading Iraq in 1991. That was a dispute between Iraq and Kuwait; Kuwait was not our 'ally' in any relevant sense of the word.

I didn't say i supported that Intervention,i just said i could see some kind of argument for it. Kuwait was an ally and did ask for our help. Yet the Left/Democrats went completely ballistic over it. They bitched about Gulf War I for years after. Now they're all suddenly big cheerleaders for bombing & killing Libyans. It's just so shallow & hypocritical on their part. This is a Civil War. Why are we involved at all?

You seem to remember a totally different Gulf War I than I do....but then again, I was in the Navy at the time and our command was over in that area doing OTH targetting.

So what are you saying? That the Left did not call it a war for oil and condemn it? I sure remember them doing exactly that.

 

[High_Gravity]

Well they're saying that their Oil has absolutely nothing to do with these Bombings. Supposedly it's all about the poor suffering Libyan People. Yea i think i've heard that argument a time or two in the past. Not very original stuff there. It's a Civil War. WTF are we doing getting involved? It really is fucked up.

I'm curious when US Cruise Missiles and fighter jets will be on their way to Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

Well, so far at least the Government response in Yemen and Bahrain do not measure up to what Qaddafi was doing, and what he was threatening to do. There is also the fact of our long history with Qaddafi and his sponsoring of attacks that killed Americans.

So I doubt we will be going into Bahrain or Yemen anytime soon, Unless they start using their Air forces to pound the opposition, and saying there will be no mercy.

Syria is a different story, I think we might just end up acting there as well.

Bahrain has Saudi Military there brutalizing the people, how come Libya gets the US Cruise Missiles and fighter jets but not the Bahraini people?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No? Well then what is the problem with Iraq again? (Not that I am defending Iraq, I thought it was dumb, I think military action in Libya is dumb too). So...where are the left's cries for peace like in 2003?

Of course not, they cheer when cruise missiles fall on Libyans heads and they cheer when truckloads of Afghani civilians are driven to military posts.



Essentially being anti-war in principle makes you a fringe loon in 2011, since both mainstream parties just can't get enough of this stuff.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Hope & Change. Enjoy.

 

[sinister59]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

 

[LibocalypseNow]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

Yea that Damn Free Speech! What were they thinking?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The saddest thing about this is that if John McCain Or DA BOOOOOOSH were President,they would be bombing the shit out of Libya too. We just don't have any real alternatives to vote for at this point. Both the Neocons and Socialists/Progressives firmly believe in that World's Policeman/Referee stuff. Man i wish someone different would come along. We sure do need a new & fresh approach to Foreign Policy. To be more succinct,we need real "Hope & Change."

 

[8537]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most liberals did not support invading and occupying Iraq.

One more time...


"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 Bill 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 Bill 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:
-- Democratic Senators 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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"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

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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

...and despite those quotes, most Democrats in DC voted against the war.

And most Democrats around the country opposed it. Cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes doesn't change the math.

 

[Uncensored2008]

...and despite those quotes, most Democrats in DC voted against the war.

Vote 77-23 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 11 October 2002, 12:50 AM
Republicans: 48-1
Democrats: 29-21
Independents: 0-1


Vote 296-133-3 On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) - 10 October 2002, 3:05 PM
Republicans: 215-6-2
Democrats: 81-126-1
Independents: 0-1-0

Not quite the way you paint it...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Weren't there cries from the right for Obama to 'lead' on intervention in Libya just 24 hours ago?

Seems that the president is damned if he does, damned if he don't.

Hey righties! This is your kind of president! He's killing brown people to give them freedom!

Hey don't try to pawn your Hopey Changey One off on us. I didn't Vote for him but you did. He should change his name to 'Obomba.' DA BOOOOOOOOSH/OBOMBA?? Who cares anyway? They're the same entity. "Hope & Change?" That shit is so hilarious. Yea the OBOMBA is sooo different than that BOOOOOOOOOSH guy. Man,some people will buy into anything if the slogan sounds right. What a bunch of Dummies.

 

[BrianH]

But it's different this time guys. We have a brutal regime of over 30 years who exploits its civilian population, supports terrorism, defies the civilized world, and etc.... Hmmm..........

 

[LibocalypseNow]

This is just wrong. And all the Obomba sycophants should be ashamed of themselves for defending it. Period,end of story.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Politics really can be a lot of fun. It often exposes the liars & hypocrites. And that's always fun. This Libyan War is supposedly not about the Oil but instead is all about helping those poor abused Libyan People. Yea it's hard to believe that anyone believes that. What happened to all those "NO WAR FOR OIL!" peeps? Where did they go? Now that a 'D' is doing the bombing,it definitely has nothing to do with Oil and is only about helping those poor abused Libyan People. Why such a change of heart? Seems way too convenient to me. So we jump in the middle of a Foreign Civil War but it has absolutely nothing to do with Oil? Yea can't get much more dishonest & hypocritical than this. Shame Shame on the Left/Democrats.

 

[sinister59]

reading these post , I think your all a bunch of isolationist,
get rid of the UN on our soil ? leave Nato ? stop diplomacy all together ? get rid of embassy's ?

nothing new just now you whiners have a media to complain .

Yea that Damn Free Speech! What were they thinking?

no the free speech its the idea of no involvement out side the US .
and the constant bitching about our president , he didn't run this country over a cliff he stopped it , he didn't invade anyone . but hell you ***** anyway , and thats fine if you only know what you were talking about .
any toothless drooling clown can speak .
but to your credit no one has beat up on his birth certificate .

 

[taichiliberal]

Want another banana, monkey?

Pretty damned stupid thing to say for a "Rhodescholar", given the factual evidence that disproved the assertions of the subject title of this thread.

Bill Maher has you jokers pegged: he pointed out that the right wing for years wanted to attack Libya...but now that Obama wants that, it's bad. For years they wanted a no fly zone....but now that the UN wants that it's bad.

And let's all remember that it was the Shrub who lifted sanctions on Libya.

Ahhh, neocon confusion and hypocrisy...a wonderful sight to behold.

We wanted to attack Libya for years? Since when?

I'd like some citations.

As you wish:

history advocates to attack libya - Google Search

 

[taichiliberal]

Want another banana, monkey?

Pretty damned stupid thing to say for a "Rhodescholar", given the factual evidence that disproved the assertions of the subject title of this thread.

Bill Maher has you jokers pegged: he pointed out that the right wing for years wanted to attack Libya...but now that Obama wants that, it's bad. For years they wanted a no fly zone....but now that the UN wants that it's bad.

And let's all remember that it was the Shrub who lifted sanctions on Libya.

Ahhh, neocon confusion and hypocrisy...a wonderful sight to behold.

biill maher is the unfortunate pondscum.

I wouldn't be so drastic....I see Maher as a purposeful irritant on both sides of the political fence.

And in this case, he was right on target:

history advocates to attack libya - Google Search