PDA

View Full Version : Anniversary


Boreas
03-20-2015, 10:14 AM
Twelve years ago today George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald H. Rumsfeld and Paul D. Wolfowitz opened the gates of Hell and took them off the hinges.

nailer
03-20-2015, 10:26 AM
And most of the Democrats in Congress willingly jumped on that wagon.

icenine
03-20-2015, 10:30 AM
Slam dunk.

Boreas
03-20-2015, 10:45 AM
And most of the Democrats in Congress willingly jumped on that wagon.

A gross oversimplification but, even to the extent that it's true, the "distribution of guilt" for our invasion of Iraq rests largely with its architects. Many Congressional Democrats were deceived, some willingly, but those who perpetrated the deception deserve the greatest level of condemnation.

Oh, and if you think implicating most Democrats is some sort of a "gotcha", you don't know me very well.

John

merrylander
03-20-2015, 10:54 AM
Rummy and Wolfie were the real instigators, in my mind's eye I still see the WaPo photo of the two of them exiting the White House with big smiles on their faces, and the next day all hell broke loose.

icenine
03-20-2015, 10:56 AM
They mislead Colin Powell, one of their own, so misleading Congress must not have caused them to lose sleep.

Boreas
03-20-2015, 11:05 AM
Rummy and Wolfie were the real instigators, in my mind's eye I still see the WaPo photo of the two of them exiting the White House with big smiles on their faces, and the next day all hell broke loose.

Bush and Cheney came into office already planning to invade Iraq. Richard Clarke and others have testified to that. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were their enablers.

All should be in the dock.

John

Tom Joad
03-20-2015, 04:11 PM
And most of the Democrats in Congress willingly jumped on that wagon.

111 Democrats in congress voted for the resolution, 147 voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

111 out of 258 is not "most".

Now admit that you are a lying bagger shill like I have been saying about you all along.

Boreas
03-20-2015, 04:38 PM
111 Democrats in congress voted for the resolution, 147 voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

111 out of 258 is not "most".


A majority of Senate Democrats did vote for it. That's the thing the wingnuts always drag out when the lies surrounding the Iraq resolution come up.

John

Tom Joad
03-20-2015, 04:46 PM
A majority of Senate Democrats did vote for it. That's the thing the wingnuts always drag out when the lies surrounding the Iraq resolution come up.

John

I know.

They've been trying to sell that "shared blame" crapola ever since their little adventure in Iraq turned into a clusterfuck.

Fuck them.

They own it.

noonereal
03-20-2015, 05:42 PM
And most of the Democrats in Congress willingly jumped on that wagon.

Thank you.

Have the right ideas without the conviction makes one an accomplice.

All these ass holes should burn in hell for what they created.

noonereal
03-20-2015, 05:44 PM
A gross oversimplification but, even to the extent that it's true, the "distribution of guilt" for our invasion of Iraq rests largely with its architects. Many Congressional Democrats were deceived, some willingly, but those who perpetrated the deception deserve the greatest level of condemnation.

Oh, and if you think implicating most Democrats is some sort of a "gotcha", you don't know me very well.

John

Do you think the average Joe American even realizes all the hell there now is a direct result of this fiasco?

Tom Joad
03-20-2015, 05:48 PM
Thank you.

Have the right ideas without the conviction makes one an accomplice.

All these ass holes should burn in hell for what they created.

Dude, why are you buying into that crap? I already showed that Nailer's post is a lie.

If you want to say that the Democrats in Congress that voted for the resolution should burn in Hell, fine. But at least acknowledge that they were in the minority of their party. 147 Democrats in congress voted against the resolution vs. 111 that voted for it.

But on the Republican side it was 263 for and 7 against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Those numbers do not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply that the blame is equal.

noonereal
03-20-2015, 06:47 PM
Dude, why are you buying into that crap? I already showed that Nailer's post is a lie.

If you want to say that the Democrats in Congress that voted for the resolution should burn in Hell, fine. But at least acknowledge that they were in the minority of their party. 147 Democrats in congress voted against the resolution vs. 111 that voted for it.

But on the Republican side it was 263 for and 7 against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Those numbers do not, by any stretch of the imagination, imply that the blame is equal.

Don't bother me. I am in no mood.

Boreas
03-20-2015, 07:22 PM
Do you think the average Joe American even realizes all the hell there now is a direct result of this fiasco?

More all the time but no, not the majority.

Someone always knew. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I)

Tom Joad
03-20-2015, 08:18 PM
I am in no mood.

That makes two of us.

Welcome to the club.

nailer
03-20-2015, 08:49 PM
111 Democrats in congress voted for the resolution, 147 voted against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

111 out of 258 is not "most".

Now admit that you are a lying bagger shill like I have been saying about you all along.

I stand corrected, but as Boreas pointed out most of the Senate Democrats were for it. As a nation we were stampeded into overthrowing Sadam after 9/11, and I believe/think the feckless Democratic leadership shares in the responsibility for the Bush Administration's misguided OIF. Effective opposition party leadership could have stripped away the façade put up to sell Iraqi regime change.

finnbow
03-20-2015, 08:51 PM
I stand corrected, but as Boreas pointed out most of the Senate Democrats were for it. As a nation we were stampeded into overthrowing Sadam after 9/11 and I believe/think the feckless Democratic leadership shares in the responsibility for the Bush Administration's misguided OIF. Effective opposition party leadership could have stripped away the façade put up to sell Iraqi regime change.

Many Dem's are scared shitless of being labelled soft on national security.

bobabode
03-20-2015, 09:09 PM
I stand corrected, but as Boreas pointed out most of the Senate Democrats were for it. As a nation we were stampeded by Bush and his pet at the CIA who lied their asses off, into overthrowing Sadam after 9/11, and I believe/think the feckless Democratic leadership shares in the responsibility for the Bush Administration's misguided OIF. Effective opposition party leadership could have stripped away the façade put up to sell Iraqi regime change.

Just a minor correction Bob ;).

A mea culpa of sorts, in the days after 9/11 I opined to the wife that maybe it was a good thing that Gee Dubya stole the election of '00 :rolleyes:.
To this day, she hasn't really let me off the hook on that one.:o

icenine
03-20-2015, 09:10 PM
I stand corrected, but as Boreas pointed out most of the Senate Democrats were for it. As a nation we were stampeded into overthrowing Sadam after 9/11, and I believe/think the feckless Democratic leadership shares in the responsibility for the Bush Administration's misguided OIF. Effective opposition party leadership could have stripped away the façade put up to sell Iraqi regime change.

Actually George Bush had a blank check to fight terrorism after 9/11...he did not have the wisdom to use that authority correctly....he said a prayer and listened to his even more cavalier advisors and basically took out a Sunni regime that had nothing to do with 9/11 and you have ISIS today. Congress trusted the President as did most Americans at the time.

In years to come people will see Obama's red line failure as very smart...Syria is a bigger mess than Iraq and guess what...only the people there can solve it.

For America to step in and solve the Middle East we would have to basically re-create a colonial empire like the British had in the 19th Century...and the terrorists would still be bombing us.

Bush pulled the trigger. America made Iran the power it is now in Baghdad.

bobabode
03-20-2015, 09:10 PM
Many Dem's are scared shitless of being labelled soft on national security.

I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

finnbow
03-20-2015, 10:01 PM
I wonder why that is? :rolleyes:

Dunno. Probably a holdover from the peace, love, dope days of the '60's.:cool:

donquixote99
03-20-2015, 11:31 PM
No. It's a constant. Been true as long as there's been a right and left. They see everybody getting stampeded by 'security fear,' and they fear for their very necks. It's instinctive.

merrylander
03-21-2015, 07:14 AM
Bush and Cheney came into office already planning to invade Iraq. Richard Clarke and others have testified to that. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were their enablers.

All should be in the dock.

John

According to what I read about it at the time Wolfie had been pushing for Sadam's removal even under Clinton.

merrylander
03-21-2015, 07:17 AM
Many Dem's are scared shitless of being labelled soft on national security.

How silly because the only times America has won a war was under a Democratic President, if you exclude Lincoln.

Boreas
03-21-2015, 09:54 AM
How silly because the only times America has won a war was under a Democratic President, if you exclude Lincoln.

If you change that to Liberal president, you don't have to exclude Lincoln.

You can even add Washington to the list as long as you bend the rules a bit. (He wasn't president until later.)

John

nailer
03-21-2015, 11:17 AM
How silly because the only times America has won a war was under a Democratic President, if you exclude Lincoln.

Democratic and Republican Presidents sure do like getting us into wars outside our borders.

Mexican-American War: Democrat; Win
Spanish-American War: Republican; Win
The Great War: Democrat; Win
WWII; Democrat: Win
Korean War: Democrat start, Republican end; Win
Vietnam War: Democrat start, Republican end; Loss
Greater Middle East War: Republican start (DS/DS), continued by Democrat, geometrically escalated by the son of a Republican, continued by Democrat with significant reduction; not over/unwinnable

Both parties were winners until Vietnam.

Boreas
03-21-2015, 11:50 AM
Korean War: Democrat start, Republican end; Win

Not sure how you can call this a win. It's not over yet, not officially and not in any practical sense either.

Vietnam War: Democrat start, Republican end; Loss

Eisenhower started it. Our involvement began in 1955. Basically, we jumped in there as soon as the French got kicked out.

Greater Middle East War: Republican start (DS/DS), continued by Democrat, geometrically escalated by the son of a Republican and continued by Democrat with significant reduction; not over/unwinnable.

Uncontainable, IMO. It will have to burn itself out and who knows what that will entail. One thing we do know is that the blame for it falls directly on our shoulders.

John

bobabode
03-21-2015, 12:53 PM
Not sure how you can call this a win. It's not over yet, not officially and not in any practical sense either.



Eisenhower started it. Our involvement began in 1955. Basically, we jumped in there as soon as the French got kicked out.



Uncontainable, IMO. It will have to burn itself out and who knows what that will entail. One thing we do know is that the blame for it falls directly on our shoulders.

John

I blame the Limey's and the Frogs but I digress. :)

Edit - and the Romans.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBup5II5347GIpvCa_XPH8B3VQmHcbo ybJJU_jGTg0HVSq58QGxA

merrylander
03-22-2015, 07:17 AM
Democratic and Republican Presidents sure do like getting us into wars outside our borders.

Mexican-American War: Democrat; Win
Spanish-American War: Republican; Win
The Great War: Democrat; Win
WWII; Democrat: Win
Korean War: Democrat start, Republican end; Win
Vietnam War: Democrat start, Republican end; Loss
Greater Middle East War: Republican start (DS/DS), continued by Democrat, geometrically escalated by the son of a Republican, continued by Democrat with significant reduction; not over/unwinnable

Both parties were winners until Vietnam.


That was not really a war just an excuse to steal land. And I think you will find that we sank the Maine through carelessness.

Boreas
03-22-2015, 08:25 AM
That was not really a war just an excuse to steal land. And I think you will find that we sank the Maine through carelessness.

Most wars are fought in order to steal something and I think you have your wars confused The boiler explosion of the USS Maine was used as an excuse to invade Cuba (Spanish-American War), not Mexico.

merrylander
03-22-2015, 09:18 AM
Most wars are fought in order to steal something and I think you have your wars confused The boiler explosion of the USS Maine was used as an excuse to invade Cuba (Spanish-American War), not Mexico.

I was responding to both 'wars' I simply neglected to Highlight the Spanish land grab. I am quit familiar with the Texas history from investigating how that carpetbagger Richard King stole the ranch from Florence's ancestor Jose Narciso Cavazos. In fact despite the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo quite a lot of Spanish landowners lost their lands, Stephen Austin and his Texas Rangers saw to that.

icenine
03-22-2015, 10:18 AM
Democratic and Republican Presidents sure do like getting us into wars outside our borders.

Mexican-American War: Democrat; Win
Spanish-American War: Republican; Win
The Great War: Democrat; Win
WWII; Democrat: Win
Korean War: Democrat start, Republican end; Win
Vietnam War: Democrat start, Republican end; Loss
Greater Middle East War: Republican start (DS/DS), continued by Democrat, geometrically escalated by the son of a Republican, continued by Democrat with significant reduction; not over/unwinnable

Both parties were winners until Vietnam.

Earth to Nailer: The Korean War was and is a stalemate.

Boreas
03-22-2015, 10:20 AM
Earth to Nailer: The Korean War was and is a stalemate.

Earth to ice: see post #28. ;)

John

whell
03-22-2015, 10:52 AM
Just a little balance to all of the venom and hand-wringing in this thread:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/27/_why_did_we_invade_iraq_117683.html

nailer
03-22-2015, 11:12 AM
Earth to Nailer: The Korean War was and is a stalemate.

Which makes it a win as far as a war goes. Now the Cold War was another story of which the Korean War is a part.

Boreas
03-22-2015, 11:28 AM
Which makes it a win as far as a war goes. Now the Cold War was another story of which the Korean War is a part.

Sucks being wrong, eh?

Pio1980
03-22-2015, 12:12 PM
I think our involvement in the Korean conflict was to reestablish the status quo, and McArthur was canned for actively advocating an invasion and victory over the North, then the PRC.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

nailer
03-22-2015, 12:20 PM
Sucks being wrong, eh?

Depends on the consequences.

icenine
03-22-2015, 03:31 PM
Earth to ice: see post #28. ;)

John

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/EmilySNLw259h222.jpg