Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[kaz]

I hold the 110 Democrats who voted for the war accountable. The 147 who didn't? They are heroes.

Yeah, you voted for Kerry for President, Biden for Vice President, you support Reid as Senate leader, you will vote for Clinton for President.

Yeah, they are stinging from that "accountab(ility)" aren't they?

 

[kaz]

Kaz 11398316

So you expect a serious answer to your wanting me to say it was only W behind the war, it's not going to happen, it's ridiculous crap. You are just rewriting history and absolving your party of their crimes

No. That is not what I asked for. Here is what I am asking you again.

"The early March 2003 decision to invade Iraq that forced an end to UN inspections is the fault of GWBush and no one else. No one on earth made that decision other than GW Bush."

If you know of someone else who decided to stop the inspections and start a war instead. I'd like you to tell me who that was.

Remember. In October 2002 when those members of Congress voted, there were no UN inspectors in Iraq and a month later Bush decided to let the UNSC give Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to let the inspectors in and be verified disarmed - peacefully. Peacefully means without a war.

The decision to quit inspections was Bush's and Bush's alone. Who else decided to quit the inspections and start a war instead?

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

I want names and quotes.

So we:

agree: W and most of the Republicans are guilty

disagree: The Clinton administration, most of the Democratic leadership, the majority of the Democrats in the Senate, and 40% of the Democrats in the House said and voted the same way. Many more Democrats said they just wanted more time but were behind the concept, which is still a violation of both reasons I'm against the war you said you agree with and more didn't give a clear justification either way.

You want to keep arguing that part we agree on. To what end exactly? Deflection?

 

[kaz]

If the US stopped supporting the Kurds, they would have been overrun by Saddam. Clearly it was an invasion

So stop with the conjecture then and prove it. Post a link to an article stating Clinton put "boots on the ground" in Iraq.

The point is irrelevant to the discussion which is that Clinton was a neocon just like HW, W and Obama. He was. He tried to topple the Iraqis militarily and he tried to set up Kurdish autonomy militarily. He nation built directly in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia. He also attacked the Sudan and Afghanistan.

So you tell me what difference it would make to you if we went into the Kurdish region with military personal or we just armed and advised them across the border. Would it make any difference to you? How would it make a difference?

Irrelevant?? You made it relevant by lying. Your lack of credibility is relevant to any discussion you have. That you're so pathological, that you can't have a discussion without lying, is a relevant factor in every discussion with you.

Not liberal = lie, got it

Let me correct that for you ...

kaz = liar

Tell me again how Clinton "occupied" Iraq with "boots on the ground," liar...?

Crying now that it's irrelevant because you got caught lying doesn't mean you didn't lie. You realize that, don'tcha?

Deflection, you just can't deal with my showing Clinton to be a neocon just like daddy and junior as well as Obama

 

[kaz]

kaz 11394927

My arguments against the Iraq invasion are:

1) It was Unconstitutional. The only authority for the military granted and the only authority for the military which should be granted is for the "defence" of the United States. Attacking Afghanistan was that, they attacked us. Invading Iraq was not. Nation building in Afghanistan was not. In Afghanistan, we should have gone in, killed as many al Qaeda and Taliban as we could and left. We should not have gone into Iraq at all. I oppose Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and having any military bases or permanent troops in the middle east.

2) It was not in our national interest. The Arab governments and Europe are under a far greater threat from radical Islamic States. Yet we push them aside and fight it for them. It's ridiculous. Look what happened when we didn't attack ISIS. Jordan and Egypt did. Why should they take care of themselves when we do it for them?

I don't know why you want to run away by throwing in the 'boring' excuse because I agree with your reasons for opposing the war in Iraq and agree with your support for toppling the Taliban.

I do not agree with leaving Afghanistan after toppling the government. That would have been a disaster to leave the Afghans to fend for themselves.

What I said was:

"I am not saying the invasion is your fault. The invasion is the fault of GWBush and no one else. But you can't seem to find a valid argument against that"

Why don't you provide a valid argument against that?

Why can't you grow a pair and acknowledge your party did this hand in hand with GWB? Pull down your dress, your **** is showing, girlie

Because no one in Congress deployed a single troop. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, was the decider who decided to invade a country which had not attacked us and which was not producing the WMD for which he decided to invade.

Even Bush acknowledges that even if you can't...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

They were side by side stroking each other into war, they are all responsible, Nancy. Grow a pair, it's time to man up to your own side's culpability and stop trying to make political hay on behalf of the war criminals in your own party, including the Veep, Senate Leader and your leading next candidate for the White House

 

[BlindBoo]

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

 

[Kosh]

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

 

[Kosh]

kaz 11394927

My arguments against the Iraq invasion are:

1) It was Unconstitutional. The only authority for the military granted and the only authority for the military which should be granted is for the "defence" of the United States. Attacking Afghanistan was that, they attacked us. Invading Iraq was not. Nation building in Afghanistan was not. In Afghanistan, we should have gone in, killed as many al Qaeda and Taliban as we could and left. We should not have gone into Iraq at all. I oppose Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and having any military bases or permanent troops in the middle east.

2) It was not in our national interest. The Arab governments and Europe are under a far greater threat from radical Islamic States. Yet we push them aside and fight it for them. It's ridiculous. Look what happened when we didn't attack ISIS. Jordan and Egypt did. Why should they take care of themselves when we do it for them?

I don't know why you want to run away by throwing in the 'boring' excuse because I agree with your reasons for opposing the war in Iraq and agree with your support for toppling the Taliban.

I do not agree with leaving Afghanistan after toppling the government. That would have been a disaster to leave the Afghans to fend for themselves.

What I said was:

"I am not saying the invasion is your fault. The invasion is the fault of GWBush and no one else. But you can't seem to find a valid argument against that"

Why don't you provide a valid argument against that?

Why can't you grow a pair and acknowledge your party did this hand in hand with GWB? Pull down your dress, your **** is showing, girlie

Because no one in Congress deployed a single troop. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, was the decider who decided to invade a country which had not attacked us and which was not producing the WMD for which he decided to invade.

Even Bush acknowledges that even if you can't...

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." ~ George Bush, 12.14.2005​

Could not have done so without Congressional approval, unlike your support of Obama's illegal wars..

 

[BlindBoo]

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Kosh]

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

 

[BlindBoo]

No need to rewrite what I'm asking you. I didn't say there were not others 'behind' the war. I said Bush is the only human being on this planet that decided to quit inspections and start a war. So who who else do you think decided that.?

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

 

[Kosh]

So Bush controls the UN?

See how dangerous the far left religion truly is?

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

See now how the far left denies their own propaganda..

Just admit far left drone that Bush did not control the UN..

 

[hipeter924]

Was it the right thing to invade Afghanistan and topple the Taliban, yes, but only just barely stable there now.

Was it the right thing to topple Saddam, yes, but a very stupid thing to do as far as keeping Iraq stable.

Democrats and Republicans took the interventionist line hook and sinker, rather than listen to more level headed types, and they got three wars by signing up to one.

So much money, time, lives, and time was lost. But the Middle East is more unstable than ever before. So much for 'Mission Accomplished'.

 

[BlindBoo]

The five permanent member hold veto power over the UNSC so the answer is yes, of course he did.

See how dangerous stupidity is?

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

See now how the far left denies their own propaganda..

Just admit far left drone that Bush did not control the UN..

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without President Bushes support. A single veto by the USA would have stopped it, period, end of story.

 

[Kosh]

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

See now how the far left denies their own propaganda..

Just admit far left drone that Bush did not control the UN..

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without President Bushes support. A single veto by the USA would have stopped it, period, end of story.

See how dangerous the far left religion is?

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

Yet Bush was the only one that could have stopped it..

See the depths the far left will go to spread their religious dogma..

 

[kaz]

Says the far left drone!

More proof showing how dangerous the far left religion truly is.

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

See now how the far left denies their own propaganda..

Just admit far left drone that Bush did not control the UN..

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without President Bushes support. A single veto by the USA would have stopped it, period, end of story.

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without Chinese, Russian, British and French support. A single veto by China, Russia, The UK or France would have stopped it, period, end of story.

 

[kaz]

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

Only if they agree

 

[BlindBoo]

The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council (China,France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" resolution, as well as decide which issues fall under "substantive" title. This de-facto control over the UN Security Council by the five governments is seen by critics, since its creation in 1945, as the most undemocratic character of the UN.[1]Critics also note the veto power as a main cause for most international inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as in the situations in Israel, Palestine and Syria.

United Nations Security Council veto power - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

More proof that Google does not work for the far left and their religious dogma..

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

See now how the far left denies their own propaganda..

Just admit far left drone that Bush did not control the UN..

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without President Bushes support. A single veto by the USA would have stopped it, period, end of story.

There is no way SCR 1441 passes without Chinese, Russian, British and French support. A single veto by China, Russia, The UK or France would have stopped it, period, end of story.

Thanks Captain Obvious.

 

[BlindBoo]

Just admit that you were wrong again Kosh, The 5 permanent members of the UNSC do control the UN.

Only if they agree

or if they disagree, it's still control.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yet Bush was the only one that could have stopped it..

See the depths the far left will go to spread their religious dogma..

Kosh the dogmatic liar is at it again. Any one of the 5 permanent members have veto power as stated earlier.

 

[Kosh]

Yet Bush was the only one that could have stopped it..

See the depths the far left will go to spread their religious dogma..

Kosh the dogmatic liar is at it again. Any one of the 5 permanent members have veto power as stated earlier.

See how the far left will do all they can to deny their own dogma posted when faced with actual facts.

Admit that Bush did not control the UN..