When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[expatriate]

With overwhelming bipartisan approval from congress.

So we agree.
Just one person.

.

Take note of this everyone. This is how liberals see the world. and trick themselves and others into taking zero responsibility for anything including their own lives.

Only one person can order our troops into the fray.

"Overwhelming bi-partisan support"? A majority of democrats in congress did NOT offer their support. Bush lied. Plain and simple. He oversold the case in an attempt to close the deal with the American people and in the process he said something that was not true and that, when he said it, he KNEW it was not true. That's a lie. and how the **** can you tell me that I don't take responsibility for my own life? I served my country in navy blue keeping your sorry ass safe for 21 years.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

147 Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization. Did they know something 'everyone' else didn't,

or did they just get lucky? Because they were right, and Bush, who made the final decision, was wrong.

All that proves is that the Democrats were partisan then as they are now.

 

[Mac1958]

With overwhelming bipartisan approval from congress.

So we agree.
Just one person.

.

Take note of this everyone. This is how liberals see the world. and trick themselves and others into taking zero responsibility for anything including their own lives.

This would make a bit more sense if I were actually a liberal. The world isn't as simplistic and black & white as you would like.

Your posts are a vivid example of how the apologists absolutely refuse to admit that the buck has to stop somewhere. You can't even do it, you can't even bring yourself to say it, I had to say it for you -- and you STILL equivocated. You folks utilize every possible diversionary tactic to avoid admitting it. That's what this whole thread has been about.

If this war were such a good thing, you'd be crowing about the FACT that Bush was the Commander in Chief who put us there. Instead, you'll shift the blame in every possible direction, because you know what a horror it has been -- just as many of us predicted.

Divert all you want, play all the games you want. You've admitted my point, and that's all I was after.

You wanted it, you defend it, you own it. Enjoy.

.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

 

[Billo_Really]

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

sure they did, so did clinton, gore, kerry, hillary, the UK, the UN, france, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, italy, the EU, the US congress, and the UK parliament.

they may have all been wrong, but it was not just "team bush".

If you admit Bush said there was no doubt and I proved there was doubt, how could I possibly be wrong?

You are such a fuckin' idiot!

 

[Billo_Really]

congress authorized and funded the Iraq action, Bush could not have done it if congress had not authorized and funded it. democrats in congress voted in favor of both the authorization and the funding.

They only authorized military action if Iraq was a threat to our national security, which no one can argue they were.

 

[jgarden]

The mistake the Democrats in Congress made was that they couldn't imagine an American president who could so irresponsible as to declare a war on Saddam without knowing where the WMS were located before sending in the troops!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The liberals, by and large, do NOT approve of your use of facts.

Liberals always rewrite history.

Please!!

There are no Liberals....

....in TEXAS!!

​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The mistake the Democrats in Congress made was that they couldn't imagine an American president who could so irresponsible as to declare a war on Saddam without knowing where the WMS were located before sending in the troops!

No. The mistake they made was being sheep like liberals who couldn't find their own ample asses in the dark without a guide.

Here's a clue for you idiot uber liberals.

It wasn't 'true" when President Bubba said it but suddenly a "lie" when President Bush said it, you ignorant dishonest hack fuckholes.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

At least Clinton had it right in saying that Saddam was indeed a threat. The world is safer today without Saddam!

Saddam was threat inside Iraq. Who gives a **** what happens inside Iraq?

Just you liberals. Only the most degenerate nutballs are lost enough to pretend to give a shit what happens to the people inside foreign hellholes.

Saddam invaded and attacked four different countries while he was in power and threaten the planets vital energy supplies with seizure and sabotage.

.....With our permission!!​

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990

Meeting With U.S. Envoy​

APRIL GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

 

[Dirk the Daring]

.

March 22, 2003 - The Iraq War begins with "shock and awe"

Commander in Chief on March 22, 2003 - George W Bush

Other Commanders in Chief on March 22, 2003 - None

.

This is my favorite (lack of) argument. Using this exact same logic, it would be fair to say this;

January 20, 2009 - The US economy is in shambles

Commander in Chief on January 20, 2009 - Barack Obama

Other Commanders in Chief on January 20, 2009 - None

But as any idiot leftie knows, Bush himself destroyed the US economy before Obama took office. Quite the conundrum.

 

[Mac1958]

.

March 22, 2003 - The Iraq War begins with "shock and awe"

Commander in Chief on March 22, 2003 - George W Bush

Other Commanders in Chief on March 22, 2003 - None

.

This is my favorite (lack of) argument. Using this exact same logic, it would be fair to say this;

January 20, 2009 - The US economy is in shambles

Commander in Chief on January 20, 2009 - Barack Obama

Other Commanders in Chief on January 20, 2009 - None

But as any idiot leftie knows, Bush himself destroyed the US economy before Obama took office. Quite the conundrum.

You're either missing the point of the discussion or choosing to.

The apologists for the war have started myriad recent threads trying to defend it by inferring that Bush was merely following the orders of the UN or the Congress. This has led to a delightful game of Whack-A-Mole™ in which none of them will admit that one man had the final decision-making authority to go to war.

Why? Because such an admission would place more responsibility on Bush for that horrific war. But, at the same time, they're saying the war was worth it! Wait a minute -- If the war was worth it, why are they trying to shift responsibility from Bush elsewhere?

Holy crap, talk about a conundrum! But you stuck your nose in late in the game and made simplistic assumptions. Okay, your call. Free country.

And your anology, above, is badly flawed. The Bush administration lobbied quite aggressively for the war -- remember the "mushroom cloud" argument, or the parade of Bush administration witnesses before Congress? -- and he made the decision he wanted to make: To go to war. Barack Obama didn't make a decision to crash the economy in September of 2008, did he? Nope. I have argued for a long time that the Meltdown was decades in the making and cultural in its DNA. You didn't know that either, but that didn't stop your simplistic assumption or your obligatory personal insult.

And not everyone who thinks the war was a stupid decision on Bush's part is a liberal. While the world is nice and simple, black & white, for some, the fact is it's a bit more complicated than that. Sorry.

So was yesterday a big "simplistic assumption" day for you?

.

 

[Article 15]

.

March 22, 2003 - The Iraq War begins with "shock and awe"

Commander in Chief on March 22, 2003 - George W Bush

Other Commanders in Chief on March 22, 2003 - None

.

This is my favorite (lack of) argument. Using this exact same logic, it would be fair to say this;

January 20, 2009 - The US economy is in shambles

Commander in Chief on January 20, 2009 - Barack Obama

Other Commanders in Chief on January 20, 2009 - None

But as any idiot leftie knows, Bush himself destroyed the US economy before Obama took office. Quite the conundrum.

Have you recently suffered a concussion?

 

[Mac1958]

.

March 22, 2003 - The Iraq War begins with "shock and awe"

Commander in Chief on March 22, 2003 - George W Bush

Other Commanders in Chief on March 22, 2003 - None

.

This is my favorite (lack of) argument. Using this exact same logic, it would be fair to say this;

January 20, 2009 - The US economy is in shambles

Commander in Chief on January 20, 2009 - Barack Obama

Other Commanders in Chief on January 20, 2009 - None

But as any idiot leftie knows, Bush himself destroyed the US economy before Obama took office. Quite the conundrum.

Have you recently suffered a concussion?

I had to read it twice to be sure he was saying what he was saying!

.

 

[LoneLaugher]

He was saying it. And while he was saying it, he was telling us how flawed our logic is.