Why did so many Dems vote for Iraq War

[kaz]

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

I know, I just don't care. They attacked us, what difference does it make if it's the "mainland?" They repeatedly attacked us. You seriously think it's less important that they attacked our shipping and resources rather than the mainland proper? I don't. You attack us, you attack us.

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?

Begging the question. I don't know where you are getting that information. The Japanese decision to attack is well chronicled and I know of no information going to the US. What are you saying that based on?

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.

Again, don't care. They attacked us, that is a declaration of war regardless of whether it was the US proper or not

 

[Kosh]

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.

Oh my the far left sees only what they want to see. And why their religion is dangerous.

You mean what is posted can not be verified using far left sources..

 

[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..

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?

Oh my see how the far left reaches deep to protect their own gods. And they use there religious propaganda as their "facts"..

 

[kaz]

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?

When you sober up, maybe you can translate what that means

 

[Political Junky]

I'd like to say they were innocent dupes of bad intelligence

But in truth, they were cowards
In the post 9-11 hysteria, they were unwilling to take the tag of "soft on terrorism" and Republicans were chomping at the bit to use it. After the attacks, Bush was given a 9-11 card to do anything necessary in the war on terror....to oppose what he wanted was unpatriotic

It was the last time Bush used his 9-11 Card

I agree, they were cowards.

 

[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?

When you sober up, maybe you can translate what that means

Your buddy Kosh brought up the Democrats support for the 1991 military action against Iraq ? Then he called Preisdent Bush 41 a far leftest and you called him a neo-con. I say he was just a con.

 

[bendog]

There is some conspiracy theory that FDR knew the Japanese planned to attack Pearl Harbor, and intentionally put the fleet there so as to have it attacked and get us into war. But, there are a few stubborn facts in the way. First and most importantly, the US only knew of a general attack being near term. The location was not specified. McArthur got basically the same warning Pearl Harbor got. And I think we messaged on to the Brits. Moreover, the theory is illogical, in that FDR was really a navy first guy ... he loved his ships. And, at the time, we thought the battleships were necessary.

Unless Germany declared war on the US first, FDR would have had a tough sell on Germany, at least initially.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

Oh my see how the far left reaches deep to protect their own gods. And they use there religious propaganda as their "facts"..

If you really believe we attacked Japan BEFORE they attack Pearl, you're delusional.

 

[kaz]

Your buddy Kosh

Haven't been reading the discussion, have you?

brought up the Democrats support for the 1991 military action against Iraq?

Then he called Preisdent Bush 41 a far leftest and you called him a neo-con. I say he was just a con.

If you know what a neocon is, then you know HW, Slick, W and Obama are all neocons. You don't know, do you?

A neocon is a big domestic government spending liberal who supports free use of the military to install democratic governments we support. Think about it, all 4 are both of those in spades

 

[kaz]

Oh my see how the far left reaches deep to protect their own gods. And they use there religious propaganda as their "facts"..

If you really believe we attacked Japan BEFORE they attack Pearl, you're delusional.

That would have been a good argument if he'd said that. Stop being a clown and try to follow the actual discussion

 

[bendog]

Your buddy Kosh

Haven't been reading the discussion, have you?

brought up the Democrats support for the 1991 military action against Iraq?

Then he called Preisdent Bush 41 a far leftest and you called him a neo-con. I say he was just a con.

If you know what a neocon is, then you know HW, Slick, W and Obama are all neocons. You don't know, do you?

A neocon is a big domestic government spending liberal who supports free use of the military to install democratic governments we support. Think about it, all 4 are both of those in spades

What govts did Slick install. Bosnia? We carried Nato's air war. Obama? He carried on a fool's errand in Afghan, and enlarged on it. Obama has trouble making up his mind.

 

[Kosh]

I know, I just don't care. They attacked us, what difference does it make if it's the "mainland?" They repeatedly attacked us. You seriously think it's less important that they attacked our shipping and resources rather than the mainland proper? I don't. You attack us, you attack us.

You mean they attack the US before Dec 1941? Why did they attack the US? We were not formally in the war?

Begging the question. I don't know where you are getting that information. The Japanese decision to attack is well chronicled and I know of no information going to the US. What are you saying that based on?

Yes the US pushed them into corner and FDR knew that the Japanese would eventually attack. That is well documented!

Theorists challenging the traditional view that Pearl Harbor was a surprise repeatedly note that Roosevelt wanted (though he did not say so officially) the U.S. to intervene in the war against Germany.

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not

Now if the far left is going to drone on about how Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he did not o after Bin Laden, that same mentality can be applied to their Hero FDR.

Again, don't care. They attacked us, that is a declaration of war regardless of whether it was the US proper or not

Bin Laden declare war and attack US assets in the region, yet Clinton did as little as possible (except drop bombs on Iraq). So German attacked the US while helping Britain while the US was claiming neutrality in WW II?

 

[Kosh]

Your buddy Kosh

Haven't been reading the discussion, have you?

brought up the Democrats support for the 1991 military action against Iraq?

Then he called Preisdent Bush 41 a far leftest and you called him a neo-con. I say he was just a con.

If you know what a neocon is, then you know HW, Slick, W and Obama are all neocons. You don't know, do you?

A neocon is a big domestic government spending liberal who supports free use of the military to install democratic governments we support. Think about it, all 4 are both of those in spades

What govts did Slick install. Bosnia? We carried Nato's air war. Obama? He carried on a fool's errand in Afghan, and enlarged on it. Obama has trouble making up his mind.

See how the far left leaves out Libya? One of Obama's illegal wars?

Clintons war in Bosnia was also the first illegal war by any president at the time. The second illegal war was Obama's war in Libya.

It is funny how the far left also claims that Afghanistan was the war worth fighting, yet they blast it every chance they get.

 

[Porker]

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,

No, you ignorant slut. THEY WERE 100 % CORRECT ON THAT. Even while the Clinton Administration was all talk and NO BALLS. Prior to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and above all, PRIOR TO GEORGE W. BUSH.

 

[BlindBoo]

Your buddy Kosh

Haven't been reading the discussion, have you?

brought up the Democrats support for the 1991 military action against Iraq?

Then he called Preisdent Bush 41 a far leftest and you called him a neo-con. I say he was just a con.

If you know what a neocon is, then you know HW, Slick, W and Obama are all neocons. You don't know, do you?

A neocon is a big domestic government spending liberal who supports free use of the military to install democratic governments we support. Think about it, all 4 are both of those in spades

Kosh appears to be beyond reason.

Both parties are of course big tax and spenders. The big difference is the GOP is willing to liberally spend the lives of other peoples children to invade and kill people in far off lands. The Dems haven't had a president like that since LBJ.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

There were precious few in either party in the spring of 03 who said, "Hold on ... are we sure about this?" But it was about WOMD. To say otherwise is not true. Bushii sold it on being necessary to make sure we wouldnt' be attacked by terrorists with womd. He had to. The public would never have supported it it he'd told the truth that he was nationbuilding.

As bad as it was for Dems to go along with post 9-11 war mongering...

The fact that the press did not ask the hard questions and demand better evidence was a travesty

They were gearing up for their treatment of Obama.

Nobody got a free pass like post 9-11 Bush

Would Republicans have given Obama the courtesy Bush got if the attacks happened on Obamas watch?

 

[francoHFW]

I know, I just don't care. They attacked us, what difference does it make if it's the "mainland?" They repeatedly attacked us. You seriously think it's less important that they attacked our shipping and resources rather than the mainland proper? I don't. You attack us, you attack us.

You mean they attack the US before Dec 1941? Why did they attack the US? We were not formally in the war?

Begging the question. I don't know where you are getting that information. The Japanese decision to attack is well chronicled and I know of no information going to the US. What are you saying that based on?

Yes the US pushed them into corner and FDR knew that the Japanese would eventually attack. That is well documented!

Theorists challenging the traditional view that Pearl Harbor was a surprise repeatedly note that Roosevelt wanted (though he did not say so officially) the U.S. to intervene in the war against Germany.

Although FDR desired to directly involve the United States in the Second World War, his intentions sharply contradicted his public pronouncements. A pre-war Gallup poll showed 88 percent of Americans opposed U.S. involvement in the European war. Citizens realized that U.S. participation in World War I had not made a better world, and in a 1940 (election-year) speech, Roosevelt typically stated: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.

Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not

Now if the far left is going to drone on about how Bush allowed 9/11 to happen because he did not o after Bin Laden, that same mentality can be applied to their Hero FDR.

Again, don't care. They attacked us, that is a declaration of war regardless of whether it was the US proper or not

Bin Laden declare war and attack US assets in the region, yet Clinton did as little as possible (except drop bombs on Iraq). So German attacked the US while helping Britain while the US was claiming neutrality in WW II?

Good for FDR- The greedy idiot isolationist GOP and its dupes had ALREADY let Japanese and German militarists run wild for years- after first creating the chaos that led to them with their FIRST corrupt world depression. Thank god this time Dems got in fast so we avoided another total catastrophe. The GOP is ALWAYS a greedy idiot ugly American disgrace.

 

[rightwinger]

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq resolution.

7 Republicans voted against it.

That's 21 times as many Democrats getting it right.

Yet somehow, Republicans are trying to pin it on Democrats

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

What utter horseshit... the Dems were going on as far back as the nineties about Iraq and its WMD programs. This was not a Bush exclusive.

The Dems are cowards. They wanted it just like the others that voted for it.

Next.

 

[cnm]

Because Saddam broke 1441 and was spitting in our face. Democrats at this time were more honest and our country was better off. The stupid part started when we started the nation building.

What a load.