Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[Faun]

Actually it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998. Jesus Christ, man, you are on the internet. How do you make a statement like that and not verify it before showing you don't know what you are talking about?

I stand corrected on the dates. Still, Operation Desert Fox had noting to do with it. The Iraqi Liberation Act was about supporting regime change from within Iraq and Operation Desert Fox was about punishing Hussein for throwing U.S. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and for taking out military targets and WMD installations.

Wow, that would be a great argument if it contradicted anything I said.

The discussion was about how I said Clinton was a neocon. I gave Iraq as one example and you disagreed with that. Now you say Clinton's policy was "about supporting regime change from within Iraq." Note it was military support, direct military support for Kurds in Iraq.

You just conceded...

Imbecile... you weren't the one I posted to when I first said Operation Desert Fox had nothing to do with the Iraqi Liberation Act. Please try to keep up.

Imbecile...Then why did you just post that to me? Please try to keep up

My first post on it was to someone else. My second post was in response to you replying to my post. Please try to keep up.

 

[kaz]

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.

That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.

I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:

1) The Democratic leadership supported it

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.

Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed

If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.

OK, fair enough on the one point I made.

But you realize you just strenghtened my argument, no? With zero need for votes, almost half the Democrats in the House voted for it. With no need for votes and the support of the Democratic leadership, they clearly could have swung 20 of 147 noes if needed

The only point here is that most Democrats on Congress voted against it. Spin away..

I'm spinning?

1) The Democratic leadership supported the war authorization

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House narrowly voted no by 147-110 with as you pointed out zero need for any of them to vote for it since the Democrats in the Senate already did that.

And you conclude the Democrats aren't responsible. It was the Republicans. Your nose is clean, you are pure as the new fallen snow. Yeah

 

[Faun]

You said we had troops "occupying" parts of Iraq ... please elaborate...

I answered that in the post you quoted

There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."

They were in the Kurdish territory, Skippy. So if an enemy only occupies the Northwestern US, they didn't invade? Hey Kaz, they are only in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, that's not occupying the United States

They were based in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south. The U.S. did not "occupy" parts of Iraq.

OK, so if Russia had troops that were based in Canada and came into Washington, Idaho and Oregon but didn't remain there permanently, they didn't invade us

Now everyone here gets to watch you idiotically switch your argument from "occupying" to "invading."

Thanks for such an easy win.

 

[BlindBoo]

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts

Saddam was insignificant and you were happy to spend thousands of American lives to needlessly remove him.

That makes you as evil as he was .

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

As has been pointed out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against giving President Bush the deciding power.

• 
  (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • 
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • 
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.

 

[kaz]

I answered that in the post you quoted

There were no U.S. troops occupying Iraq, so if you claimed there were, you were merely pulling another "kaz."

They were in the Kurdish territory, Skippy. So if an enemy only occupies the Northwestern US, they didn't invade? Hey Kaz, they are only in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, that's not occupying the United States

They were based in Turkey in the north and Saudi Arabia in the south. The U.S. did not "occupy" parts of Iraq.

OK, so if Russia had troops that were based in Canada and came into Washington, Idaho and Oregon but didn't remain there permanently, they didn't invade us

Now everyone here gets to watch you idiotically switch your argument from "occupying" to "invading."

Thanks for such an easy win.

No switch, we did both. How do you occupy without invading? We armed and sheltered the Kurds with boots on the ground. You're the one trying to split hairs.

The point is that Clinton was a neocon. Obviously he was a fiscal liberal. And obviously he extensively used the military to install governments he approved of. Your splitting hairs over occupy and invading doesn't change that. We were in Iraq before W came to power militarily trying to topple Hussein both in the North and the South

 

[rdean]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The main reason for invading Iraq was over WMD. Turned out, Hussein wasn't making any.

Because he still had enough in the form of binary agents.

Yet all that was found were some unaccounted leftovers from before the first Gulf war scattered around the country.

Fully lethal stockpiles that were previously claimed to have been destroyed.

link?

 

[kaz]

A claim for which you know you have no proof - as per the norm.

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts

That's just an emotional and irrational response. Nobody would seriously equate supporting an invasion to remove a tyrant with the actions of that evil tyrant - except an emotional partisan hack I guess.

Saddam was very significant and was undermining the premise of the UN Security Council, the UN programs for humanitarian aid, and was at the nexus of terrorism in the Middle East. It's why your President signed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

As ghas been point out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against give President Bush they deciding power.

• 
  (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • 
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • 
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.

The Democratic leadership supported it, the Democrat Senate voted for it. The Democratic House had a close vote with as Faun just pointed out only need 19 flips when zero were needed in the first vote.

Based on that you think Obama was born a virgin birth, Democrat farts smell like lilacs and Harry Reid wouldn't be responsible if he shit in his own pants. I blame both parties. You call me partisan for that, the "biggest on this board." You just keep telling yourself that...

 

[rdean]

No, it wasn't. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 110 voted for it.

That is not supporting it, that is opposing it.

I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:

1) The Democratic leadership supported it

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.

Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed

If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.

OK, fair enough on the one point I made.

But you realize you just strenghtened my argument, no? With zero need for votes, almost half the Democrats in the House voted for it. With no need for votes and the support of the Democratic leadership, they clearly could have swung 20 of 147 noes if needed

The only point here is that most Democrats on Congress voted against it. Spin away..

I'm spinning?

1) The Democratic leadership supported the war authorization

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House narrowly voted no by 147-110 with as you pointed out zero need for any of them to vote for it since the Democrats in the Senate already did that.

And you conclude the Democrats aren't responsible. It was the Republicans. Your nose is clean, you are pure as the new fallen snow. Yeah

Yes, you are spinning. You must have missed this link:

Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[HUGGY]

In a post 9-11 hysteria, Democrats were chomping at the bit to throw Bush and Cheney under the bus. Here is the evidence. Guantanimo is still open, the NSA is collecting every email and phone call, consistent with the Patriot Act. Wake up

Are you ******* nuts?

Bush had 85% approval and was free to do whatever he wanted in the name of fighting terrorism

We never realized how much he would abuse our trust.....two wars, Abu Gharib, torture, Gitmo, spying on Americans.......Iraq

Multiple wars are still being fought, GITMO open, and Americans spied on. If these were so bad in your eyes, you'd be calling out those that continue the practice; not Bush.

The GOP blocked Obama from closing Gitmo.

When and How? If confirmed that the GOP blocked it, why not an Executive Order towards closing GITMO or limiting its operations?

Because Obama never, ever would use an executive order to circumvent the Constitution or the law.



That was funny...

Why would we want GITMO closed? What we want is to process the terrorists and get THEM out of Cuba.

GITMO is a valuable resource should we ever need to isolate future prisoners.

 

[BlindBoo]

The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council byUNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[5]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts

No part of the Iraqi Liberation Act called for the U.S. to invade Iraq. If I recall, it limited our fiscal commitment to something like $100m.

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law
105-235, which declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in
material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations''
and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance
with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to
bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''.

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

As ghas been point out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against give President Bush they deciding power.

• 
  (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • 
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • 
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.

The Democratic leadership supported it, the Democrat Senate voted for it. The Democratic House had a close vote with as Faun just pointed out only need 19 flips when zero were needed in the first vote.

Based on that you think Obama was born a virgin birth, Democrat farts smell like lilacs and Harry Reid wouldn't be responsible if he shit in his own pants. I blame both parties. You call me partisan for that, the "biggest on this board." You just keep telling yourself that...

Probably your over the top insults for anyone who doesn't share your partisan view taints my opinion.

The point here is the joint resolution specifically mentioned the UN. Since 1441 was authorized by the Bush administration after this resolution was passed, the implementation of that SCR should have been paramount, instead, it was disregarded.

 

[kaz]

I realize you know nothing about how things work in Washington, or anywhere else. But:

1) The Democratic leadership supported it

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House voted barely against it.

Enough Democrats in the House voted for it to pass it. They didn't need the others. That's done in the House all the time. They clearly could have gotten 20 House members to flip and pass it if they were needed

If every single Democrat in the House voted against it, it still would have passed.

OK, fair enough on the one point I made.

But you realize you just strenghtened my argument, no? With zero need for votes, almost half the Democrats in the House voted for it. With no need for votes and the support of the Democratic leadership, they clearly could have swung 20 of 147 noes if needed

The only point here is that most Democrats on Congress voted against it. Spin away..

I'm spinning?

1) The Democratic leadership supported the war authorization

2) The Democratic Senators voted for it

3) The Democratic House narrowly voted no by 147-110 with as you pointed out zero need for any of them to vote for it since the Democrats in the Senate already did that.

And you conclude the Democrats aren't responsible. It was the Republicans. Your nose is clean, you are pure as the new fallen snow. Yeah

Yes, you are spinning. You must have missed this link:

Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

When did I miss it?

Question. Is that being a liberal means you never take responsibility for your own actions why you became one or was that just a fringe benefit?

 

[kaz]

Nothing here supports your claim.
But, you knew that.

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts

Text - H.R.4655 - 105th Congress 1997-1998 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Congress.gov Library of Congress

You can claim that the President doesn't have the authority in accordance with the Constitution to use military force but you would be wrong.

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

As ghas been point out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against give President Bush they deciding power.

• 
  (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • 
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • 
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.

The Democratic leadership supported it, the Democrat Senate voted for it. The Democratic House had a close vote with as Faun just pointed out only need 19 flips when zero were needed in the first vote.

Based on that you think Obama was born a virgin birth, Democrat farts smell like lilacs and Harry Reid wouldn't be responsible if he shit in his own pants. I blame both parties. You call me partisan for that, the "biggest on this board." You just keep telling yourself that...

Probably your over the top insults for anyone who doesn't share your partisan view taints my opinion.

Yes, my blaming both parties for getting us into a war they both voted for is clearly partisan. You blaming the Republicans for the war and blaming the Republicans for misleading the poor, innocent Democrats who are just naively trusting into voting for it is just your critically astute brain working on pure intelligence and reason, the epitome of critical thinking.

The point here is the joint resolution specifically mentioned the UN. Since 1441 was authorized by the Bush administration after this resolution was passed, the implementation of that SCR should have been paramount, instead, it was disregarded.

Agreed, thank you for arguing a point not in question, that is very helpful to the discussion. It was ignored by both parties, Democrats danced arm in arm into war without it with the Republicans. I realize blaming both parties for their actions is completely partisan of me. You actually are a rocket scientist, aren't you?

 

[Care4all]

Does anyone honestly, truly believe that if we left troops there another year or two or Ten or Twenty, that there would be Peace on Earth, Good will towards men, and no problems in Iraq between the Sunni and the Shiites?

I think that's a Dream that will never come true, in my lifetime, (unless the 2nd coming takes place ) and I do not want to see another American soldier killed over these never ending Religious battles between these Muslim groups. Only THEY, can solve their own problems.

The Lord knows we have tried and tried and tried and tried with our meddling and skirmishes and wars and and undercover coups by funding one side or the other depending on what year it was....

How many of our men and women have died or are disabled forever due to our involvements in their battles? ONE too many, as far as I am concerned, especially since it truly is all IN VAIN.

Ten years is a long time as "peacekeepers"

We were never told that the Afghanistan or Iraq missions would involve permanent peacekeeping forces

We finally got the hell out of two regions we had no business being in

Yes, nearly reaching 10 years is a very very very very long time, considering this is what Rumsfeld said about the invasion and length of time we would need to be there:

''There will be no World War III starting with Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared Thursday, and rejected concerns that a war would be a quagmire.

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program.

He said the U.S. military is stronger than it was during the Persian Gulf War, while Iraq's armed forces are weaker.

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," he said.


Rumsfeld It Would Be A Short War - CBS News

 

[BlindBoo]

Right, it's only written into the text of the resolution itself. Furthermore, several countries specifically say that not having a hidden trigger is the only reason they voted for it. But you claim no proof. Even our own Abassador claimed we would seek a second resolution. But you claim no proof.

Yet Democrats voted to authorize W to invade without it. That's right, just ignore the inconvenient facts

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise
speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in
section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

The Iraq war authorization supported by the Democratic leadership and most of the party.

You want em W, go get him. No UN resolutions required

As ghas been point out in this thread the majority of Democrats in Congress voted against give President Bush they deciding power.

• 
  (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • 
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • 
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower.

The US had agreed to 1441 and it was being implemented.

The Democratic leadership supported it, the Democrat Senate voted for it. The Democratic House had a close vote with as Faun just pointed out only need 19 flips when zero were needed in the first vote.

Based on that you think Obama was born a virgin birth, Democrat farts smell like lilacs and Harry Reid wouldn't be responsible if he shit in his own pants. I blame both parties. You call me partisan for that, the "biggest on this board." You just keep telling yourself that...

Probably your over the top insults for anyone who doesn't share your partisan view taints my opinion.

Yes, my blaming both parties for getting us into a war they both voted for is clearly partisan. You blaming the Republicans for the war and blaming the Republicans for misleading the poor, innocent Democrats who are just naively trusting into voting for it is just your critically astute brain working on pure intelligence and reason, the epitome of critical thinking.

The point here is the joint resolution specifically mentioned the UN. Since 1441 was authorized by the Bush administration after this resolution was passed, the implementation of that SCR should have been paramount, instead, it was disregarded.

Agreed, thank you for arguing a point not in question, that is very helpful to the discussion. It was ignored by both parties, Democrats danced arm in arm into war without it with the Republicans. I realize blaming both parties for their actions is completely partisan of me. You actually are a rocket scientist, aren't you?

Your support for all things GOP is apparent in your every disingenuous insult. You just want the Democrats to equally share the blame for President Bushes disaster. They don't. A little less than half do share the blame for giving President Bush the deciding power.

 

[kaz]

Your support for all things GOP is apparent in your every disingenuous insult. You just want the Democrats to equally share the blame for President Bushes disaster. They don't. A little less than half do share the blame for giving President Bush the deciding power.

Yes, blaming both parties is clearly my "support for all things GOP." Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl, it's making you stupid

 

[asterism]

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

It was a UN ceasefire. It was not a US ceasefire. The UN Security Council is the body to authorise action, not the POTUS, nor the Congress.

It is rather hilarious to read the horror at Iraq defying the UN while the US invades in breach of the UN Charter.

The UN does not have the authority to declare ceasefires and they don't have the authority to enforce them. The ceasefire was between the US and Iraq.

 

[nat4900]

Yes, blaming both parties is clearly my "support for all things GOP." Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl, it's making you stupid

OK, Kaz......give it a rest...

Yes, you may be blaming BOTH parties for the war ON Iraq...but there are different levels of culpability simply based on two factors:

First the number of NAY votes to go to war by the Dems (only a handful of GOPers also voted nay....as others have noted.)

Second, the considerable number of democrats who had voted to go to war who NOW apologize for their "yea" vote....I DO NOT accept the apology so damn easily but at least these dems have made an attempt toward contrition......

I do not know if ANY GOPers who sent as to war have ever apologized....there may be some, however.

 

[asterism]

Fully lethal stockpiles that were previously claimed to have been destroyed.

Bullshit. Obsolete, unusable and decaying munitions from the early 90s.

Not true.

Thousands were binary agents, still lethal.

Iraq s Chemical Weapon Program

 

[kaz]

Yes, blaming both parties is clearly my "support for all things GOP." Take your head out of the kool-aid bowl, it's making you stupid

OK, Kaz......give it a rest...

Yes, you may be blaming BOTH parties for the war ON Iraq...but there are different levels of culpability simply based on two factors:

First the number of NAY votes to go to war by the Dems (only a handful of GOPers also voted nay....as others have noted.)

Second, the considerable number of democrats who had voted to go to war who NOW apologize for their "yea" vote....I DO NOT accept the apology so damn easily but at least these dems have made an attempt toward contrition......

I do not know if ANY GOPers who sent as to war have ever apologized....there may be some, however.

You realize you just admitted GOP doesn't apologize, they stand behind what they did. Which means you are further demonstrating the stupidity of the mental midget BlindBoob for calling me a "partisan" Republican for blaming both parties...

And no, you don't get may style points for being less wrong than the Republicans when you did and said the same thing. Even most of the Dems who voted against it said he was a threat, they just wanted the UN to have more time.

And the Democrats are not actually apologizing, it's a further attack. An apology would have been that they were wrong, period. Not I was wrong, blame Republicans

 

[asterism]

And the far left propaganda continues without hesitation or question.

No, sir. You are the one LYING. What we knew in 2003 after inspections was much different than in 2002 when the vote for authorization of force was held.

Wrong! But you keep thinking that far left revisionist history exists in reality..

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world."

So you are claiming all those are incorrect?

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Breaking a cease-fire is. Without enforcement of cease-fire agreements the entire purpose of them becomes moot.

The UNSC, with US support passed 1441 which was supposed to allow Saddam a final chance to allow unfettered access to anywhere the inspector wanted to go. The only reason that passed was because the Bush Administration agreed that a second UN resolution would be needed before using military force on Iraq. President Bush reneged on that agreement.

That's not true. The UN inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002 and multiple undeclared chemical weapons were found and destroyed. Iraq then submitted a "final" report in December 2002. Hans Blix stated that they new report gave no new information and noted that all previous "final" reports were dishonest.

Hans Blix stated this in January 2003:

Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

CNN.com - Transcript of Blix s remarks - Jan. 27 2003

Iraq was still in breach of the agreement. UN Resolution 1441 did not require UN approval for the invasion.