Thanks Cut and Run Democrats

[007]

George Bush was Commander in Chief. Congress gave him authority to go to war at his discretion.

You see, this is EXACTLY where people get confused. Congress did NOT have the "power" to give ANY AUTHORITY to Bush to start a war, and a President does NOT have the power to "declare war." What Bush did, was in essence, illegal. ONLY congress has the "power" to declare war, PERIOD!

Invading Iraq was a HUGE mistake of gargantuan proportions. It wasn't thought out in any sense of the word. We invaded without authority and became an occupying force and then we nation built, ALL of which is AGAINST our constitution.

Iraq and the middle east was MORE stable with Saddam in power. We fucked up.

 

[Tech_Esq]

When 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11, did it mean the Americans were able to defend themselves or not?

Huh?

I'll wait. You noodle it through.

Argument by analogy. Yesterday Iraq sufferd 95 killed by bombs. You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

I remind you that 3,000 Americans were killed in bombings on 9/11 and ask you the turnabout question, whether that means the Americans could or could not defend themselves?

If you are having trouble with the original question based on the analogy, perhaps there is something wrong with the original question.

 

[geauxtohell]

SIX BOMBS, 95 DEAD - CARNAGE AND DESPAIR RETURN TO IRAQ

And this is thanks to the Democrats, HOW? Dubya and DICK orchestrated this invasion and occupation.

People People stop it.

Democrats and Republicans BOTH gave Bush the authority to start this war.

Democrats AND Republicans BOTH continued to fund it without strings.


You're all idiots if you think it has to do with only bush, only obama, only dems, or only reps.

I fault the DEMS for being spineless.

That being said; Bush was the CINC, made the case, and lobbied for this war.

The buck stops with him.

 

[geauxtohell]

If Representatives based their votes on lies, doctored intelligence, etc ... then I think the limit of their own liability is that they failed to envision that those who lied were capable of lying. Congress doesn't have an independent intelligence agency as far as I know - at some point I think they have to trust the information they are given. If that information is wrong - then what resources do they have to determine that?
Was the information wrong through honest mistake? Was it wrong through deceitful manipulation?
I consider those crucial distinctions.

It was wrong because under the previous administration they fragmented our ability for "intelligent" intelligence. ie. FBI-CIA. We then had to rely on outside sources for our intelligence....which all seemed to say that there was a threat that needed to be dealt with....not just from the Bush administration.

Yes, and the Bush administration didn't come up with the concept of a "pre-emptive war".

/sarcasm

 

[NYcarbineer]

SIX BOMBS, 95 DEAD - CARNAGE AND DESPAIR RETURN TO IRAQ

And this is thanks to the Democrats, HOW? Dubya and DICK orchestrated this invasion and occupation.

People People stop it.

Democrats and Republicans BOTH gave Bush the authority to start this war.

Democrats AND Republicans BOTH continued to fund it without strings.

Nonsense. Most Democrats in the House voted against the authorization. It would have gone nowhere if the Democrats had had their way.

 

[geauxtohell]

When 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11, did it mean the Americans were able to defend themselves or not?

Huh?

I'll wait. You noodle it through.

Argument by analogy. Yesterday Iraq sufferd 95 killed by bombs. You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

I remind you that 3,000 Americans were killed in bombings on 9/11 and ask you the turnabout question, whether that means the Americans could or could not defend themselves?

If you are having trouble with the original question based on the analogy, perhaps there is something wrong with the original question.

Oh, so this is about "pay back" now?

I thought it was about "spreading democracy".

Perhaps you guys should get your talking points aligned.

Even if this was about "pay back", I fail to see how 95 dead Iraqi civilians gets us any closer to settling the score.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is ridiculous and pure partisan hackery to be trying to blame Obama for increased violence in Iraq. Have I said that? Yes I believe I did.

Put the blame where it lies, on the terrorists.

And with that, I leave you with it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It was wrong because under the previous administration they fragmented our ability for "intelligent" intelligence. ie. FBI-CIA. We then had to rely on outside sources for our intelligence....which all seemed to say that there was a threat that needed to be dealt with....not just from the Bush administration.

IF we accept this premise is true, then Bush had 2 1/2 years to "fix" what was wrong with our intelligence.

Your claim also doesn't address intelligence doctoring which has been firmly established.

2 1/2 years of fixing something as covert as intelligence? It probably takes a decade or more to fix something like that.
I don't buy in the intell doctoring....can you give a nonbias source to what your stating? I ain't saying your wrong, but the only place where I heard it was MSNBC.
I found it myself...thank you.

So you're saying that 2 1/2 years are not enough to fix a single agency? So I guess, you're not buying the theory that Obama "owns" this war now, or that he "owns" this economy now?????

If 2 1/2 years isn't enough time to fix a single agency, then certainly 9 months isn't enough to fix a war and a broken economy?????????????????????????

Sorry, you are tripping over your own talking points.

The intelligence used to convince congress to go along with Bush on Iraq was wrong. No real debate there.
So it's clear that congress can't really be blamed for believing the bad intell. But can Bush be blamed? Unclear - was he aware of the intelligence doctoring or was it a Cheney operation that Bush was unaware of? I'll leave you all to debate those finer points. But it's clear to me that the "blame difusion" game is just that - a game.

Maybe you don't like the Democratic members of Congress - fair enough. Maybe you don't like the Republicans in Congress - also fair enough.

But trying to get Congress to accept a share of the blame for one of our nation's biggest screw-ups is simply not supported by any facts or evidence. Wishful thinking don't make it so ....

 

[VaYank5150]

You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

This is where you are wrong, and it may be through no fault of your own. I query this based on conversations going on within two separate threads where pro-Iraq invasion folks are saying that the surge helped to defeat terrorism in Iraq, hence the surge was a cataclysmic success. So, my question is if the surge was such a success and the terrorists have been defeated, WHY can't the Iraqi people defend themselves?

 

[rightwinger]

Huh?

I'll wait. You noodle it through.

Argument by analogy. Yesterday Iraq sufferd 95 killed by bombs. You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

I remind you that 3,000 Americans were killed in bombings on 9/11 and ask you the turnabout question, whether that means the Americans could or could not defend themselves?

If you are having trouble with the original question based on the analogy, perhaps there is something wrong with the original question.

Oh, so this is about "pay back" now?

I thought it was about "spreading democracy".

Perhaps you guys should get your talking points aligned.

Even if this was about "pay back", I fail to see how 95 dead Iraqi civilians gets us any closer to settling the score.

Let me explain the analogy. It has nothing to do with payback from 9-11.

The point is that we are claiming that Iraq is unable to defend itself because of yesterdays bombings and that nobody made the same claim about us.

OK??

 

[Tech_Esq]

Huh?

I'll wait. You noodle it through.

Argument by analogy. Yesterday Iraq sufferd 95 killed by bombs. You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

I remind you that 3,000 Americans were killed in bombings on 9/11 and ask you the turnabout question, whether that means the Americans could or could not defend themselves?

If you are having trouble with the original question based on the analogy, perhaps there is something wrong with the original question.

Oh, so this is about "pay back" now?

I thought it was about "spreading democracy".

Perhaps you guys should get your talking points aligned.

Even if this was about "pay back", I fail to see how 95 dead Iraqi civilians gets us any closer to settling the score.

I have no idea how you made what I said into something about "payback." But, if you think that's what I was trying to say, you are incorrect.

 

[Xenophon]

A lot of blame, but not aimed at the correct source.

The real culpret is Bush Senior, not junior.

He involved US forces in a landwar in Asia and refused to finish the job, instead he punted to the UN and the situation was never resolved.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not places the US should be in, in fact the only place the US should be in the US.

Back to the present day, if Iraqis want a country its up to them, frankly saying they were 'better off' under Saddam is like saying Jews were better off under Hitler, it just doesn't work. Life was ok in Iraq IF you were a Sunni and a baathist, if you were a Shia or some other party it sucked.

Bush jr made the wrong choice in 03, to save face he attacked, knowing the UN was giving up trying to police Saddam (the 'sanctions' were ending in 2004 and would not be renewed) Bush thought he could end the problem quickly and relitively cheaply. It was easy to take Iraq, but then the mistakes began, Bush sent Jay Gardner to Iraq to plan out what to do, and then ignored everything he recommended and instead appointed L Paul Bremer as imperial overlord. Things went downhill from their till Patreus came up with a COIN strategy that worked.

What goes on there now is their problem, they let foriegners into their country and they are the ones that have to do something about it.

We never should have been in the region in the first place, the 'liberation of Kuwait' was a UN deal, and as always happens when the UN is involved, things get worse instead of better.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You query whether the surge worked and the Iraqis are able to defend themselves based on the outcome of this event.

This is where you are wrong, and it may be through no fault of your own. I query this based on conversations going on within two separate threads where pro-Iraq invasion folks are saying that the surge helped to defeat terrorism in Iraq, hence the surge was a cataclysmic success. So, my question is if the surge was such a success and the terrorists have been defeated, WHY can't the Iraqi people defend themselves?

I see. No I haven't seen the other threads, so I didn't know about the other things buzzing around.

I would say the surge did work. The surge took a situation that was nearly beyond retrieval and restored order. It created a condition where control could be passed to the Iraqis. And, in fact, control was successfully passed to the Iraqis and then the Americans were ordered into barracks. At that point, the number of troops was at pre-surge levels. When they were ordered into barracks however, the counter-insurgency operations effectively ended.

My point was, since I was apparently being too obtuse for anyone to get it, was that because people died in an event does not mean Iraqis can't be responsible for their own security. Thousands died here and no one suggested that of us. Hundreds in Spain and the UK and nobody suggested that they could not be responsible for their security.

Nothing is perfect my friend. There will be set backs. People are really trying to kill them. So, they will succeed sometimes.

 

[ozzmdj]

"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


Off-course he set on his ass all 8 years as President

 

[nodoginnafight]

"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

And when we got there - they didn't have anything. DAMN Clinton was good!!!!! Too bad Bush came along behind and screwed the pooch ......

 

[Xenophon]

Clinton was handed the mess by Bush Senior, at least he was smart enough to only bomb and not invade.

He should have did what did in Somalia and ordered a withdrawl (BTW, Bush sn also stuck Clinton with that, authorizing US forces to land days before Clinton took the actual office).

 

[Tech_Esq]

A lot of blame, but not aimed at the correct source.

The real culpret is Bush Senior, not junior.

He involved US forces in a landwar in Asia and refused to finish the job, instead he punted to the UN and the situation was never resolved.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not places the US should be in, in fact the only place the US should be in the US.

Back to the present day, if Iraqis want a country its up to them, frankly saying they were 'better off' under Saddam is like saying Jews were better off under Hitler, it just doesn't work. Life was ok in Iraq IF you were a Sunni and a baathist, if you were a Shia or some other party it sucked.

Bush jr made the wrong choice in 03, to save face he attacked, knowing the UN was giving up trying to police Saddam (the 'sanctions' were ending in 2004 and would not be renewed) Bush thought he could end the problem quickly and relitively cheaply. It was easy to take Iraq, but then the mistakes began, Bush sent Jay Gardner to Iraq to plan out what to do, and then ignored everything he recommended and instead appointed L Paul Bremer as imperial overlord. Things went downhill from their till Patreus came up with a COIN strategy that worked.

What goes on there now is their problem, they let foriegners into their country and they are the ones that have to do something about it.

We never should have been in the region in the first place, the 'liberation of Kuwait' was a UN deal, and as always happens when the UN is involved, things get worse instead of better.

I like to blame Colin Powell for it. But, it was H.W.s administration and he didn't have to listen to Powell. 24 to 48 more hours of ground war would have ensured the Shia uprising's success. The most fearsome, effective and efficient armored attack in the history of the world was about tear into the Republican Guards and decimate them. And, Colin Powell threw in the towel.

Not an admirable quality in a general.

 

[Xenophon]

I like to blame Colin Powell for it. But, it was H.W.s administration and he didn't have to listen to Powell. 24 to 48 more hours of ground war would have ensured the Shia uprising's success. The most fearsome, effective and efficient armored attack in the history of the world was about tear into the Republican Guards and decimate them. And, Colin Powell threw in the towel.

Not an admirable quality in a general.

There was another thing about Powell that most peopl;e don't know.

He ordered Stormin Norman to return Iraqi choppers and allow them to put down the Shia.

This is generally ignored today, but Powell was directly responsible for the failure of the Shia uprising that Bush Senior actually egged on.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Cheney argued AGAINT invading:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I]YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire[/ame]

wonder what changed his mind?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I like to blame Colin Powell for it. But, it was H.W.s administration and he didn't have to listen to Powell. 24 to 48 more hours of ground war would have ensured the Shia uprising's success. The most fearsome, effective and efficient armored attack in the history of the world was about tear into the Republican Guards and decimate them. And, Colin Powell threw in the towel.

Not an admirable quality in a general.

There was another thing about Powell that most peopl;e don't know.

He ordered Stormin Norman to return Iraqi choppers and allow them to put down the Shia.

This is generally ignored today, but Powell was directly responsible for the failure of the Shia uprising that Bush Senior actually egged on.

I wonder if he's proud of his accomplishment.