Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[Borillar]

An on-going "excuse" that many right wingers on here have about supporting the wasteful, horrible and unproductive war ON Iraq (not just "in Iraq") is that many democrats ALSO voted for such a war.....

They're somewhat correct on this and I, for one, have much less respect for those democrats who foolishly went along with the LIES of the murderous Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...... It is salutary for right wingers to tacitly and finally admit that the war was a DISASTER and, to some extent, I don't blame them for trying to share the blame far and wide to ease their own sorry conscience.....

However, there's an ancient axiom that states:

If one tells you a lie.....and you repeat it thinking it to be true, ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?

We can start with the lie that the war was only about WMD. It was not. It was about enforcing a sanctions regime that was being undermined by Saddam with the help of France, Germany, Russia and the UN. The UN in fact had passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq but refused to authorize action, because those countries were profiting from it.
As for WMD, in the post 9/11 world no one wanted to gamble on security Saddam had a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. To ignore that the possibility tha the would use WMD on the US would have been grossly irresponsible.
As for the Dems, the war was popular and most people supported it. As it was popular they went along with it, hoping to score points. When the war didnt end by the commerical break Dems were all other themselves to oppose it and condemn it Because Dems are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet.
When the Dems got power in 2006 they could have cut off funds and made Bush withdraw from Iraq. But since Dems are not only big hypocrites but spineless gutless bastards they wouldnt take responsibility for the subsequent failure. They opposed Bush's surge, and tried to undermine it. Then they applauded Obama for winning on Bush's strategy. And then ignored Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan, because Dems are gutless hypocritical lying pieces o shit.

Sanctions issues were not a case for war.

Sanctions killed a lot of people, did not see the far left upset about that..

How many of those people were Americans?

 

[bendog]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

What did FDR lie about? And whom did he attack before Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war upon us? WTF!?

 

[Kosh]

An on-going "excuse" that many right wingers on here have about supporting the wasteful, horrible and unproductive war ON Iraq (not just "in Iraq") is that many democrats ALSO voted for such a war.....

They're somewhat correct on this and I, for one, have much less respect for those democrats who foolishly went along with the LIES of the murderous Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...... It is salutary for right wingers to tacitly and finally admit that the war was a DISASTER and, to some extent, I don't blame them for trying to share the blame far and wide to ease their own sorry conscience.....

However, there's an ancient axiom that states:

If one tells you a lie.....and you repeat it thinking it to be true, ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?

We can start with the lie that the war was only about WMD. It was not. It was about enforcing a sanctions regime that was being undermined by Saddam with the help of France, Germany, Russia and the UN. The UN in fact had passed resolution after resolution condemning Iraq but refused to authorize action, because those countries were profiting from it.
As for WMD, in the post 9/11 world no one wanted to gamble on security Saddam had a 20 year history of state supported terrorism. To ignore that the possibility tha the would use WMD on the US would have been grossly irresponsible.
As for the Dems, the war was popular and most people supported it. As it was popular they went along with it, hoping to score points. When the war didnt end by the commerical break Dems were all other themselves to oppose it and condemn it Because Dems are the biggest hypocrites to walk the planet.
When the Dems got power in 2006 they could have cut off funds and made Bush withdraw from Iraq. But since Dems are not only big hypocrites but spineless gutless bastards they wouldnt take responsibility for the subsequent failure. They opposed Bush's surge, and tried to undermine it. Then they applauded Obama for winning on Bush's strategy. And then ignored Obama's failed surge in Afghanistan, because Dems are gutless hypocritical lying pieces o shit.

Sanctions issues were not a case for war.

Sanctions killed a lot of people, did not see the far left upset about that..

How many of those people were Americans?

What difference does it make?

 

[kaz]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

I realize you're making a point and I'm not missing that, but who did FDR attack who didn't attack us? Just wondered on that one bullet

 

[Kosh]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

What did FDR lie about? And whom did he attack before Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war upon us? WTF!?

You must be far left!

There is enough evidence that proves that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.
Germany never attacked the US.
Bin Laden declared war on the West and the US in 1996, so that means Clinton should have gone in and taken him out right?

Se how you are not allowed to question the hero's of the far left..

 

[Borillar]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

Yeah, Japan never actually bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis powers never declared war upon the US. Right...

FDR did round up Americans of Japanese descent and put them into camps. Only thing you got right.

Truman used the atomic bombs to end WW2. There is no try.

 

[kaz]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

What did FDR lie about? And whom did he attack before Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war upon us? WTF!?

You must be far left!

There is enough evidence that proves that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.
Germany never attacked the US.
Bin Laden declared war on the West and the US in 1996, so that means Clinton should have gone in and taken him out right?

Se how you are not allowed to question the hero's of the far left..

Yes, Bendog is far left

Who says FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? I know a lot of history, I haven't heard that. What happened was well documented. Are you thinking of Churchill in Coventry? He was protecting the deployment of radar and allowed the city to be bombed.

Germany attacked us repeatedly, what are you talking about?

 

[Borillar]

Maybe it had something to do with the Billy Clinton administration before Bush

SNIP:
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD ??

For several months, John Kerry and his peers have blasted President Bush over the Iraqi War. Interestingly, President Bush stated, simply, that there was a "grave danger" of Saddam Hussein acquiring and building "Nuclear Weapons and other WMDs" during "the next six months, at the time of the outbreak of war. He later stated: "We all believed there were stockpiles, since we'd been lectured on the subject by the Clinton Administration for several years." To date, not a single Democrat has owned up to responsibility for the claims of "stockpiles", which were not what President Bush stated. We note that the Democrats rely upon the weakness of the memory of the American Public to cloud the issue over. They blame Bush for Democratic Party misrepresentations. ACSA believes the Democrats are trying to ride their own misrepresentations into the White House, we thought we'd publish what each one said, among a crowd of similar statements by ALL the Democrats, who are now accusing Bush of something he did not say and did not do... This dishonesty by the Democratic Party has seriously muddied the political process in the 2004 election. Here's what the Democrats said about Iraq's WMDs (including the source of each quote):

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source


all of it here:
What Did The Democrats Say About

And yet no democrat was idiotic enough to go and actually invade Iraq.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

I realize you're making a point and I'm not missing that, but who did FDR attack who didn't attack us? Just wondered on that one bullet

Germany never attack the US mainland.

When war was declared between Germany and the U.S. in 1941, the German High Command immediately recognized that current German military strength would be unable to attack or invade the United States directly.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

This is very like the lies we heard from Ronnie Ray-Gun:

I don't know
I don't recall
I don't remember

Which do you want to believe? That Bush and Reagan were ignorant? or lying?

Either way, they lied to the American public.

Well, in Reagan's defense, he was a senile old coot with Altzheimer's, so when he claimed he couldn't remember, he was probably telling the truth. Bush, not so much.

 

[kaz]

Germany never attack the US mainland.

When war was declared between Germany and the U.S. in 1941, the German High Command immediately recognized that current German military strength would be unable to attack or invade the United States directly.

What difference does that make? They repeatedly attacked our shipping. They also had the Duquesne Spy Ring in the US. Granted we were helping the British, but they had a choice. Let us help the British or attack us and we enter the war directly. They chose

 

[bendog]

And none of that was a legitimate case for war.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

I realize you're making a point and I'm not missing that, but who did FDR attack who didn't attack us? Just wondered on that one bullet

Germany never attack the US mainland.

When war was declared between Germany and the U.S. in 1941, the German High Command immediately recognized that current German military strength would be unable to attack or invade the United States directly.

You do realize Germany declared war on the US before the US reciprocated?

FDR lied, repeatedly, about aid going to Britain. And, the oil embargo left Japan with little option to attack or end it's war in Manchuria and China, which was politically impossible. But, FDR never lied about the real danger Nazism posed. He underestimated the capability of Japan, though.

Actually, I'm a compassionate conservative, but NOT a neocon.

 

[kaz]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

This is very like the lies we heard from Ronnie Ray-Gun:

I don't know
I don't recall
I don't remember

Which do you want to believe? That Bush and Reagan were ignorant? or lying?

Either way, they lied to the American public.

Well, in Reagan's defense, he was a senile old coot with Altzheimer's, so when he claimed he couldn't remember, he was probably telling the truth. Bush, not so much.

At least he wasn't a senile old coot until he left office, Obama is a useless, inane empty suit now

 

[Kosh]

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

What did FDR lie about? And whom did he attack before Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war upon us? WTF!?

You must be far left!

There is enough evidence that proves that FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen.
Germany never attacked the US.
Bin Laden declared war on the West and the US in 1996, so that means Clinton should have gone in and taken him out right?

Se how you are not allowed to question the hero's of the far left..

Yes, Bendog is far left

Who says FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? I know a lot of history, I haven't heard that. What happened was well documented. Are you thinking of Churchill in Coventry? He was protecting the deployment of radar and allowed the city to be bombed.

Germany attacked us repeatedly, what are you talking about?

Before Pearl Harbor the Germans did not, nor did they invade or attack the mainland in the same manner as the Japanese..

There is enough evidence to show that FDR and the military knew that is was coming. If we had taken out that force and Pearl Harbor was never attacked, do you think Americans would have supported getting involved with WWII?

Even the German Generals knew they could not attack mainland USA. That is why they were trying to coordinate with the Japanese on many things.

 

[Kosh]

Maybe it had something to do with the Billy Clinton administration before Bush

SNIP:
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD ??

For several months, John Kerry and his peers have blasted President Bush over the Iraqi War. Interestingly, President Bush stated, simply, that there was a "grave danger" of Saddam Hussein acquiring and building "Nuclear Weapons and other WMDs" during "the next six months, at the time of the outbreak of war. He later stated: "We all believed there were stockpiles, since we'd been lectured on the subject by the Clinton Administration for several years." To date, not a single Democrat has owned up to responsibility for the claims of "stockpiles", which were not what President Bush stated. We note that the Democrats rely upon the weakness of the memory of the American Public to cloud the issue over. They blame Bush for Democratic Party misrepresentations. ACSA believes the Democrats are trying to ride their own misrepresentations into the White House, we thought we'd publish what each one said, among a crowd of similar statements by ALL the Democrats, who are now accusing Bush of something he did not say and did not do... This dishonesty by the Democratic Party has seriously muddied the political process in the 2004 election. Here's what the Democrats said about Iraq's WMDs (including the source of each quote):

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source


all of it here:
What Did The Democrats Say About

And yet no democrat was idiotic enough to go and actually invade Iraq.

Authorizing it is the same thing!

 

[kaz]

You do realize Germany declared war on the US before the US reciprocated?

FDR lied, repeatedly, about aid going to Britain. And, the oil embargo left Japan with little option to attack or end it's war in Manchuria and China, which was politically impossible. But, FDR never lied about the real danger Nazism posed. He underestimated the capability of Japan, though.

I was with you until the last part. My understanding was they overestimated the Japanese. They viewed the Nazis as the real threat and put 85% of the resources to Europe and only 15% against the Japanese. The strategy was to hold off the Japanese until we defeated the Nazis then turn our resources to defeat the Japanese. But by the time we defeated the Nazis, we'd almost won the war in the Pacific

Actually, I'm a compassionate conservative, but NOT a neocon.

Didn't know a "compassionate conservative" was a euphemism for liberal. You aren't compassionate or conservative. Do you use it as sort of a double negative? You aint not no liberal?

 

[BlindBoo]

President Bush? Far Left?

You know what's funny is you would agree he's a "Neocon" wouldn't you? A neocon is a liberal by definition. LOL.

He spends like a liberal, trusts government to make our choices for us like a liberal, uses the military like a leftist and he never did much of anything for socons.

In what way is he not liberal?

Nah he was no pseudo-conservative like his son was. We are talking about Bush 41 right, and his 1991 effort to oust Saddam's forces from Kuwait? He was the last President of the greatest generation. It was brilliant the way he snookered Saddam into invading Kuwait so Saddam could be hailed as the next great Hitleresque threat. Of course the compliant press failed to mention that Bush and Raygun had been the ones to give the green light to our allies to sell Saddam all that nasty stuff he had but...... that doesn't matter nearly as much as the profit. Right?

 

[BlindBoo]

An on-going "excuse" that many right wingers on here have about supporting the wasteful, horrible and unproductive war ON Iraq (not just "in Iraq") is that many democrats ALSO voted for such a war.....

They're somewhat correct on this and I, for one, have much less respect for those democrats who foolishly went along with the LIES of the murderous Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz...... It is salutary for right wingers to tacitly and finally admit that the war was a DISASTER and, to some extent, I don't blame them for trying to share the blame far and wide to ease their own sorry conscience.....

However, there's an ancient axiom that states:

If one tells you a lie.....and you repeat it thinking it to be true, ultimately WHO is the culpable liar?

Another prime example of how dangerous the far left religion truly is..

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Democrats: 10-45. 10 (18%) of 56 Democratic Senators voted for the resolution

Democrats: 86-179. 86 (32%) of 267 Democrats voted for the resolution.

See how entrenched the far left was in power back in early 90's?

Yet this far left drone will vote for Hilary as their rich white far left masters command them to do..

Wasn't that vote in support of UNSCR 678. To expel Iraq from the territory of Kuwait? President Bush(41) chose wisely then not to invade Iraq.

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

GWHB

Reasons Not to Invade Iraq By George Bush Sr.

And always the far left shows they do not understand what happened in 1991..

A political stance in order to appease the Saudi's so we could their terroritory for a base of operations. Many in the region did not like Saddam, but he was their Arab brother.

President Bush? Far Left?

See what happens when you defeat these far left drones with facts? Their programming can not handle it..

You have offered no facts and answered no question.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

Yeah, Japan never actually bombed Pearl Harbor and the other Axis powers never declared war upon the US. Right...

FDR did round up Americans of Japanese descent and put them into camps. Only thing you got right.

Truman used the atomic bombs to end WW2. There is no try.

Yes we know you are far left drone!

Anyone can declare war, so not sure why the far left focuses on such things.

Bin Laden did the same thing..

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Bingo, so stop the Bush lied crap, he didn't, he believed it, and focus on that we should not have invaded, period. Democrats need to stop the lie they were duped and say they were wrong, but they learned. That would be something I could get behind. But continuing to use the lie you were duped for vote pandering I can't get behind

What do you think W believed? I think he truly believed the Iraq invasion would lead to a stable and democratic republic in Iraq, but in order to invade he had to sell Americans on Saddam having womd that could fall into terrorist hands, and create harm in America much greater that 9-11 ... so he hung his hat of trumped up evidence.

LBJ probably had good intentions too.

Sure FDR did, he lied the US into war.
FDR attacked a country that did not attack the US
FDR round up all those Japanese Americans and put them in camps.
FDR used two WMD's to try and the WWII early.

Yet the far left sees him as a hero..

Kosh

So Japan didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor?
Who did FCR attack who did not attack us first?

Did you get that out of a Texass history book?