Dems thoughts on Iraq Pre Bush Administration......

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Then it should be a simple matter for you to find one single quote pre-bush advocating a boots-on-the-ground invasion. Just one. Should be a simple thing. You can do this easily...right? If - as you seem to believe - they were on the same page as bush, they should have been advocating HIS solution prior to him pushing for it. Let's see it or you admit that this thread is complete and total BS.

I'll wait.

BTW, I noticed that you completely ignored the pre-9/11 stance of the bush admin. Why was that? It's history staring you in the face...right?

No need to wait Tar. Since you can't do this yourself. Excerpts from the Iraqi Liberation Act

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations:
(1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq;
(2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET)

Explain to me how do this without military force?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Here's the Republican narrative in a nutshell:
1) Dems are pussies, sometimes you need to go to war to make shit happen. 2) Dems wanted this war just as badly as Bush did (but they're still pussies). 3) This is now all Obamas fault, even though George Bush took us to war in the first place.

Let's make sure we look at some facts:
Of the 132 congressmen that voted against the Iraq war, 6 were Republicans. Of the 23 Senators that voted against the war, 1 was a Republican. Don't try and share the blame on this one.

Typical party beef sucker,...it's their fault....no, no,..it's their fault......

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Where is it written in the Constitution that we only get two parties?

......good question.......

 

[LifelongHawk]

They lied. The info they presented concerning the aluminum tubes was a lie. They lied. Period.

Playing in the detail weeds on any particular statement misses the much more pernicious point. Bush wanted to invade Iraq from day 1. The national tragedy of 9/11 allowed his administration the opportunity to blatantly mislead the public that Iraq was involved with 9/11 (they knew he wasn't) and/or Iraq had close ties to Bin Laden (they knew he didn't). You may recall the polls at that time had like 75% of Americans believing Saddam flew the damn planes, and that is because 1) we are stupid, and 2) 100% of the time an administration official discussed Iraq 9/11 and Al-Qaeda was mentioned within 15 seconds.

Any particular statement analyzed misses the point of the blatant lie of intention and motive. Remember the Downing Street memo?


C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

 

[HRiscool]

Where is it written in the Constitution that we only get two parties?

It isn't. I actually wish we had a several parties like Greece. Then instead of being upset with 2 parties, we could hate on 7 parties.

 

[Lone Clone]

When you claim, as Rice did, they are "only really suited for centrifuge programs" you're not really qualifying your answer. And when you say, as Powell did, that "Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher", you're pretty much dismissing the opinions of every single centrifuge expert who weighed in on the issue...and you're putting your thumb in the eye of your own administration's centrifuge experts. Is that what passes for clarity with you?

Your CIA source was Joe Turner, an engineer who never worked on a centrifuge design in his life. There was no one else. He distinguished himself by having his case torn to shreds by the IAEA and coming back claiming they bought his theory. The IAEA sent the administration a report detailing why Turner's claims were suspect but that report...well, we have no idea what happened to that.

So you will call it what you will...but they lied.

Now...as for your last attempt to deflect blame...the invasion was bush's idea and was voted DOWN by the Democrats in the House. You can try to somehow spin that as being "on board" but that would be a lie. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

OK, you are using the HROT definition of a lie. Just so that's clear. It means whatever you want it to mean at any given time.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Where is it written in the Constitution that we only get two parties?

It's the structure of the govt that demands it. We aren't set up for coalition rule. What happens if the coalition falls apart? There's no way to call for elections like there is in a parliamentary system. Absent that, you can have a party that gets 10% of the vote determining the direction of the country by selling their support to the highest bidder. And there's nothing to be done about it until the next election.

What happens in real life is that if a special interest group - and that's generally what third parties in this country are - starts getting some traction, one or the other major parties plays to that base and consumes it. Where is the "Tea Party"?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

OK, you are using the HROT definition of a lie. Just so that's clear. It means whatever you want it to mean at any given time.

Well, if the HROT definition of a lie is saying something you know isn't true, then you're absolutely correct. Just so that's clear.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

No need to wait Tar. Since you can't do this yourself. Excerpts from the Iraqi Liberation Act

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations:
(1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq;
(2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET)

Explain to me how do this without military force?

Seriously? You have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? Are you sure that's your stance?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

When you claim, as Rice did, they are "only really suited for centrifuge programs" you're not really qualifying your answer. And when you say, as Powell did, that "Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon, a multiple rocket launcher", you're pretty much dismissing the opinions of every single centrifuge expert who weighed in on the issue...and you're putting your thumb in the eye of your own administration's centrifuge experts. Is that what passes for clarity with you?

Your CIA source was Joe Turner, an engineer who never worked on a centrifuge design in his life. There was no one else. He distinguished himself by having his case torn to shreds by the IAEA and coming back claiming they bought his theory. The IAEA sent the administration a report detailing why Turner's claims were suspect but that report...well, we have no idea what happened to that.

So you will call it what you will...but they lied.

Now...as for your last attempt to deflect blame...the invasion was bush's idea and was voted DOWN by the Democrats in the House. You can try to somehow spin that as being "on board" but that would be a lie. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

Lol, what a bunch of BS.

Seriously? You have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? Are you sure that's your stance?

Is that a trick question? Are you completely unaware of how things have happened in the Middle East. Keep dancing Tar, you're making me happy.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Lol, what a bunch of BS

Feel free to refute it point by point. Otherwise, you're just another slack-jawed idiot spouting nonsense.

Is that a trick question? Are you completely unaware of how things have happened in the Middle East. Keep dancing Tar, you're making me happy.

Ummmm...no...not a trick question. I'll ask again so read slowly - do you seriously have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Feel free to refute it point by point. Otherwise, you're just another slack-jawed idiot spouting nonsense.



Ummmm...no...not a trick question. I'll ask again so read slowly - do you seriously have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? A simple yes or no will do.

Why do you think this is about simply toppling a dictator by the way?
You mean sanctions, using outside groups, etc? Yeah...that only works so much Tar. Seriously, what are you trying to prove here? You are so naive these matters it's not even funny.
You keep trying to play this by the book, that's your first mistake.

 

[Lone Clone]

Well, if the HROT definition of a lie is saying something you know isn't true, then you're absolutely correct. Just so that's clear.

No, and you just outlined a situation where the speaker did NOT know. You very clearly pointed out that administration officials, notably Condi Rice, had conflicting information and chose one that you wouldn't have chosen. In your view, disagreeing with you constitutes lying. And I honestly think you don't even realize it. I have fought this battle on HROT enough. When I use the term "lie," it means what the dictionary says "lie" means, and what the courts have ruled "lie" means. Whether the statement in question is from a Democrat -- "The ACA will save Americans an average of $2,600 a year" -- or from a Republican -- "The tubes were intended to be used in a centrifuge."

I'm not going to play idiotic games with real words anymore. Sorry.

 

[joelbc1]

The poster needs t understand that Junior was looking for an excuse to overthrow Saddam. The "wmd" information gave Junior the excuse he was looking for to kick down the door. For whatever reason, Junior looked upon Saddam as a major reason Clinton was able to defeat his father in '92. For Junior, it was settling an old family feud.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Feel free to refute it point by point. Otherwise, you're just another slack-jawed idiot spouting nonsense.



Ummmm...no...not a trick question. I'll ask again so read slowly - do you seriously have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? A simple yes or no will do.

If they could have toppled saddam without force then why didn't they do it then? Who has been toppled with the military might that saddam had by the way, in other ways as you say?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

The poster needs t understand that Junior was looking for an excuse to overthrow Saddam. The "wmd" information gave Junior the excuse he was looking for to kick down the door. For whatever reason, Junior looked upon Saddam as a major reason Clinton was able to defeat his father in '92. For Junior, it was settling an old family feud.

Ridiculous, this was a plan that guys like Kissinger and Bryzinski had in mind for a long time. PNAC, look it up.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Feel free to refute it point by point. Otherwise, you're just another slack-jawed idiot spouting nonsense.



Ummmm...no...not a trick question. I'll ask again so read slowly - do you seriously have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? A simple yes or no will do.

Break it down for you? You're doing it yourself dumbass. You're basically saying that what the Bush administration said was a lie, and then you COMPLETELY ignore that the Clinton Administration said that they KNEW and had NO DOUBT that Saddam had WMD's. This was BEFORE Bush Jr. got into office, you party flag waving moron.
So therefore the original point of the thread is COMPLETELY true. The lies(which claimed lies you, yourself say are lies), came BEFORE Bush Jr. was ever in office.

If Bush lied, then so did the Democrats, plain and simple. Facts are facts.

And here you are trying to deflect blame from the Democrats? Are you f'n serious right now? The main players on YOUR side were all unanimous in their thoughts on it. Reid, Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc, all had a hand in making it happen.

You're too f'n dense to see past the fact that the words they spoke against it, AFTERWARDS, mind you was just political BS. Grow up and understand how government actually works.

 

[strummingram]

It's the structure of the govt that demands it. We aren't set up for coalition rule. What happens if the coalition falls apart? There's no way to call for elections like there is in a parliamentary system. Absent that, you can have a party that gets 10% of the vote determining the direction of the country by selling their support to the highest bidder. And there's nothing to be done about it until the next election.

What happens in real life is that if a special interest group - and that's generally what third parties in this country are - starts getting some traction, one or the other major parties plays to that base and consumes it. Where is the "Tea Party"?

I realize it became a 2-party duopoly. And, I realize that alternative movements are co-opted and diluted by the duopoly. I'm just not sure why we need to rewrite the Constitution to topple the duopoly. We didn't have the duopoly from the beginning, or at the beginning.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

You are, perhaps unintentionally, wandering off the track here, I think.

There are two issues.

One, which I think is the original one in this thread, is whether the Bushies lied about WMD and were the only ones who thought WMD were a problem.

The other is who wanted to do what about the WMD.

In the first case, anybody who continues to deny that the overwhelming majority of experts, politicians, etc., in the US and allied countries believed Saddam posed a threat with WMD simply is being dishonest or is woefully uninformed.

In the second case, there is no doubt that a significant number of people, most of them Democrats, who believed Saddam posed a WMD threat were reluctant to invade Iraq. Even those who voted to authorize the invasion didn't really want to do it -- Tom Harkin is one example. He did it for political coverage, and was not alone in his party.

>>>>>>>>If true, then that is 100,000x worse than anything Bush ever did. It's one thing to make a decision based on the evidence provided and have it turn out wrong. It's entirely different to vote to send thousands of young men to their death in a war that you know is wrong because you wanted more votes in the next election. Despicable and disgusdting, if true. The "voting for political coverage" argument can never hold water.

 

[Guido Sarducci]

Seriously? You have no idea how the US might help topple a dictator absent an invasion? Are you sure that's your stance?

How did that work out for us before the invasion?

If there were successful ways to remove Saddam from power without force, and all the democrats in power agreed he was developing WMDs and must be stopped, then why was he still in power after decades?

Either there was no successful way in this situation, or if there was a solution the Democrats woefully neglected the problem. So either you are wrong or the Dems f'd the situation up. You pick.

 

[Lone Clone]

>>>>>>>>If true, then that is 100,000x worse than anything Bush ever did. It's one thing to make a decision based on the evidence provided and have it turn out wrong. It's entirely different to vote to send thousands of young men to their death in a war that you know is wrong because you wanted more votes in the next election. Despicable and disgusdting, if true. The "voting for political coverage" argument can never hold water.

This is, of course, an excellent point. It should be raised more often.
We have a terrific example in our own Tom Harkin. When the administration and Republicans were pushing hard for a vote on authorization before the 2002 elections, Harkin squealed like a stuck hog. He didn't think it was fair to ask a member of Congress to vote on an important matter right before an election -- which is, of course, precisely 180 degrees from the way things ought to work in a democratic republic. He whined and moaned and bitched and screamed about how it wasn't justified.....and then voted to authorize it.
And then, just to make it a clean sweep, Harkin voted against funding for military aid and reconstruction in Iraq.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This whole thread misses the point.

EVEN IF Saddam had some small quantity of minor WMD, or "programs" - so what? Probably every country in world that isn't merely struggling to survive has some equipment and some "programs."

BFD!

How do we get from there to invading another nation in violation of international law, and killing tens of thousands of innocent people?

Whether these dissemblers and delusionals were Dems or GOPs, Americans or foreigners, they were objectively wrong that Iraq posed a significant threat. And they were both objectively and morally wrong that we were justified to attack Iraq.

 

[joelbc1]

Ridiculous, this was a plan that guys like Kissinger and Bryzinski had in mind for a long time. PNAC, look it up.

I suggest you read Paul O'Neill's "Price of Loyalty"......Pretty much documented Junior's desire to invade Iraq and rid the world of Saddam. Kissinger/Brezinsky, my ass.....Junior wasn't that quick.

 

[Lone Clone]

This whole thread misses the point.

EVEN IF Saddam had some small quantity of minor WMD, or "programs" - so what? Probably every country in world that isn't merely struggling to survive has some equipment and some "programs."

BFD!

How do we get from there to invading another nation in violation of international law, and killing tens of thousands of innocent people?

Whether these dissemblers and delusionals were Dems or GOPs, Americans or foreigners, they were objectively wrong that Iraq posed a significant threat. And they were both objectively and morally wrong that we were justified to attack Iraq.

Parser, I'm assuming that if you stopped and thought about it, you would see there is a difference between Iraq under Saddam possessing nuclear weapons and Great Britain under Tony Blair having them.
Joel, I recommend you read Bob Woodward's writings about the leadup to the Iraq war, with special attention to where Bush is cautioning Tenet that he doesn't want anyone exaggerating the WMD threat.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

I suggest you read Paul O'Neill's "Price of Loyalty"......Pretty much documented Junior's desire to invade Iraq and rid the world of Saddam. Kissinger/Brezinsky, my ass.....Junior wasn't that quick.

Ummm...so their own words mean nothing Joel?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

This whole thread misses the point.

EVEN IF Saddam had some small quantity of minor WMD, or "programs" - so what? Probably every country in world that isn't merely struggling to survive has some equipment and some "programs."

BFD!

How do we get from there to invading another nation in violation of international law, and killing tens of thousands of innocent people?

Whether these dissemblers and delusionals were Dems or GOPs, Americans or foreigners, they were objectively wrong that Iraq posed a significant threat. And they were both objectively and morally wrong that we were justified to attack Iraq.

No it doesn't, it simply brings up a point you for some reason have a very hard time wanting to admit. This isn't Burger King Parser, you can't just have it your way.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

How did that work out for us before the invasion?

If there were successful ways to remove Saddam from power without force, and all the democrats in power agreed he was developing WMDs and must be stopped, then why was he still in power after decades?

Either there was no successful way in this situation, or if there was a solution the Democrats woefully neglected the problem. So either you are wrong or the Dems f'd the situation up. You pick.

I say both, Tar Heel wants it to be the way he chose to believe. What he wants is insignificant next to the power of the truth. If Bush lied, then so did the Dems before him.

 

[joelbc1]

Ummm...so their own words mean nothing Joel?

You read O'Neill's comments and come back and talk to me about relevance of facts.
I am sure EV ERY Administration has "strategic plans" with the military to invade ot go to war with EVERY nation in the world.....Junior went one step further and assigned Cabinet level officials in his Administration to find a reason for the US to invade Iraq in Feb of 2001.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

You read O'Neill's comments and come back and talk to me about relevance of facts.
I am sure EV ERY Administration has "strategic plans" with the military to invade ot go to war with EVERY nation in the world.....Junior went one step further and assigned Cabinet level officials in his Administration to find a reason for the US to invade Iraq in Feb of 2001.

Do you just need to blame only bush? Others weren't at fault? A book means only so much Joel.

 

[joelbc1]

Do you just need to blame only bush? Others weren't at fault? A book means only so much Joel.

Bush was POTUS....Bush gets the credit. You know, you might wanna hold Junior and all those past POTUS' to the same standard you hold Obama.
Personally, I think a lot of the dark and bad decisions Junior made can be linked back to his supporting crew...Guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld. It doesn't stop[ there...you could throw in a Paul Wolfowitz, too.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Bush was POTUS....Bush gets the credit. You know, you might wanna hold Junior and all those past POTUS' to the same standard you hold Obama.
Personally, I think a lot of the dark and bad decisions Junior made can be linked back to his supporting crew...Guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld. It doesn't stop[ there...you could throw in a Paul Wolfowitz, too.

Don't forget to credit the Clinton Administration for contributing and 'knowing' that Saddam had WMD's.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

 

[joelbc1]

Don't forget to credit the Clinton Administration for contributing and 'knowing' that Saddam had WMD's.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

Hawktimus........Clinton did NOT invade Iraq. Junior did. It was his (Junior's decision)...Clinton had NOTHING to do with it. Jeeeebus Keeeeerist.....get over "Clinton" because I doubt if you ever voted for him. In short, Junior bears FULL responsibility for the invasion...he has even admitted to it. You don't have to try and cover for him.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Hawktimus........Clinton did NOT invade Iraq. Junior did. It was his (Junior's decision)...Clinton had NOTHING to do with it. Jeeeebus Keeeeerist.....get over "Clinton" because I doubt if you ever voted for him. In short, Junior bears FULL responsibility for the invasion...he has even admitted to it. You don't have to try and cover for him.

I could care less about Jr., but if you're too thick to see that the Clintons set up the entire deal, then you're blind. Clinton is close friends with the Bush family. This isn't too hard to understand. You don't really know politics Joel. You think you do, but you don't. This was a setup from the get go.

 

[naturalmwa]

I realize it became a 2-party duopoly. And, I realize that alternative movements are co-opted and diluted by the duopoly. I'm just not sure why we need to rewrite the Constitution to topple the duopoly. We didn't have the duopoly from the beginning, or at the beginning.

Yes we did

 

[naturalmwa]

Parser, I'm assuming that if you stopped and thought about it, you would see there is a difference between Iraq under Saddam possessing nuclear weapons and Great Britain under Tony Blair having them.
Joel, I recommend you read Bob Woodward's writings about the leadup to the Iraq war, with special attention to where Bush is cautioning Tenet that he doesn't want anyone exaggerating the WMD threat.

Hmm, you're getting a candle too.

 

[joelbc1]

Don't forget to credit the Clinton Administration for contributing and 'knowing' that Saddam had WMD's.

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

But Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq. He must have had good reason NOT too.
Ike knew all about the Bay of Pigs.It was his CIA director who orchestrated it...Ike did NOT invade Cuba....But JFK did took 100% of the blame for its failure. There is a lesson to be learned from this Hawktimus.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

But Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq. He must have had good reason NOT too.
Ike knew all about the Bay of Pigs.It was his CIA director who orchestrated it...Ike did NOT invade Cuba....But JFK did took 100% of the blame for its failure. There is a lesson to be learned from this Hawktimus.

Yeah his reason being that he only had a year left of his term and he didn't in any way have the kind of public support needed.

 

[joelbc1]

Yeah his reason being that he only had a year left of his term and he didn't in any way have the kind of public support needed.

That is an awfully weak argument, Hawktimus. Try another approach.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

That is an awfully weak argument, Hawktimus. Try another approach.

Why, you're only going to believe what you want to believe. You've been lied to for so long, you'll simply refuse to believe the truth. Clintons moves against Iraq were acts of war, fact. His presentation of lies about WMDs came before Bush got into office. He was simply the first part of the plan. This was a team effort and only the blind would deny that. History has all the answers you need but YOU are deliberately ignoring it.
Your first problem is that you fail to see DC as a whole. Look up CFR, and all of its major members, see what their thoughts on Iraq was. Then note that both Clintons were/are members of the CFR.
The CFR is not make believe, it's a very real group, where many major decisions in foreign policy is decided.
Why is the young man in this conversation the wiser one?

 

[Lone Clone]

That is an awfully weak argument, Hawktimus. Try another approach.

You people are absolutely intent on complicating a relatively simple situation for partisan purposes. Take off your blinders -- both sides.

The basic, elemental truth is that the preponderance of evidence and intelligence convinced virtually everybody that Saddam had WMD and was working on getting more.

See how easy it is when you establish a simple truth as a basis for explaining why Clinton, Bush, etc., did what they did?

Of course, it eliminates the chance to call people with whom you disagree liars.