You mutant how you get a glove to fit that hand.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
Dem 29 Yea 21 nay
GOP 48 Yea 1 nay
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
You mutant how you get a glove to fit that hand.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
Dem 29 Yea 21 nay
GOP 48 Yea 1 nay
Thanks for correcting me on the totals of that vote I somehow remembered it being a 98 to 2 vote. Looks like I was wrong and fewer Democrats were hood winked by Bush than I believed.
If Bush was presented with bad info the lie doesn't start with him. If my son comes home all beat up and tells me it was an adult who did it I'd go after said adult, but if while beating that man I find out it was his son for some reason I'm not the one lying my son is still the liar.
That said I hated Bush because I don't care what BS he was told I knew his war was garbage and they wanted any reason they could get to go to war with Iraq. It was over oil and nothing else and as soon as we won oil prices went thru the roof.
We lie about every war we are in almost.
That said I hated Bush because I don't care what BS he was told I knew his war was garbage and they wanted any reason they could get to go to war with Iraq. It was over oil and nothing else and as soon as we won oil prices went thru the roof.
We lie about every war we are in almost.
A lot of truth here but the President is responsible for his administration for better or worse. JFK took the heat for The Bay of Pigs fiasco and like President Trumen said, "The buck stops here." You can't blame everything on a President of course but the implementation of foreign policy is his decision and he bears the load for the consequences. Thats the office and responsibility he ran for.
Theres a helluva lot of difference between taking responsibility for bad Intel and intentionally lying Levi.
The only democrats that were "hoodwinked" were the ones that were and still are party leaders.
The only democrats that were "hoodwinked" were the ones that were and still are party leaders.
Wonder why Obama did not pick any of the leaders that were not "hoodwinked" to lead his foreign policy? Biden, HRC, Hagel, Kerry....and why would he accept support from Powell who made the key sell to the UN? Why don't we talk about Obama's extensive drone campaign or the slaughter in Syria due to his feckless/myopic policy (loose description)?
You've already let me know your mind is made up and nothing I present here will change that. That's what ideologues do and is a waste of time for me which is a shame since I thought of you as one of the more intelligent open-minded people here. I really did.
So I'll leave you with this, if you want to see into the closed cabal that was the Bush administration there are some insightful books you can read that will give a glimpse into what was going on there.
One is a book by Ron Suskin written with the help and assistance of Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, a man of great integrity and ability. It is called The Price of Loyalty. In it O'neill describes Bush, his attitude and demeanor in oval office meetings but more importantly his unofficial agenda. You should read that book for some insight.
Another is George Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm where he says the famous sixteen words in George Bush's State of the Union speech were not approved by the CIA to be accurate or known and that he tried to get them removed from the speech with no success.
I can understand Tenet may have reason to repair his image but O'Neill doesn't and the two together from very different arms of the Bush administration are way too much to be wrong or treacherous.
I understand you have a nearly insurmountable resistance to believe that the Bush administration actively misled the public with evidence that did not exist and that democrats are equally to blame for the Iraq blunder but there is far, far more evidence you are simply trying to divert yourself and others from facing the facts.
So, Obama needs to take responsibility for the many failed foreign policies of his administration.
Absolutely. I'm not an Obama superfan. I think he has screwed up several decisions and many I just do not agree with. I happen to think the congressional leadership has screwed up even more.
Levi's paid internet trolling topic schedule this upcoming week:
Mon - Iran Contra
Tue - Southern Strategy
Wed - Repugs bulled LBJ into Vietnam
Thur - Diebold and the rigged Bush election
Fri - Trayvon could have been the one to cure cancer
Sat - Bathroom rape, is it really that bad?
Sun - TBD (best of motherjones, dailykos, media matters, vox)
like 2007-8 Dem congress leading up to the financial crisis?
Mon - Iran Contra
Tue - Southern Strategy
Wed - Repugs bulled LBJ into Vietnam
Thur - Diebold and the rigged Bush election
Fri - Trayvon could have been the one to cure cancer
Sat - Bathroom rape, is it really that bad?
Sun - TBD (best of motherjones, dailykos, media matters, vox)
like 2007-8 Dem congress leading up to the financial crisis?
You mean these countries?
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Gee I wonder what these powerful nations may have gotten out of that deal. How many provided troops on the ground other than US,UK, the two who participated in the big lie, along with Australia, and Poland?
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
Gee I wonder what these powerful nations may have gotten out of that deal. How many provided troops on the ground other than US,UK, the two who participated in the big lie, along with Australia, and Poland?
[at the risk of derailing the above super-duper important debate about events from more than a decade ago]
ANOTHER LIBRUL HIT PIECE ON TRUMP! This time from Robert Kagan, via Washington Post:
This Is How Fascism Comes to America
And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision.
ANOTHER LIBRUL HIT PIECE ON TRUMP! This time from Robert Kagan, via Washington Post:
This Is How Fascism Comes to America
And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision.
I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I didn't vote for John Kerry in 2004. I won't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. No one that authorized that will ever get my vote.
I read this article and it proves absolutely nothing. He provides no factual evidence for anything he claims. The one example he uses doesn't appear to be a lie at all. He assumes a lot to get to the conclusion that Bush lied. For example he states "The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear."
I would venture to guess that intelligence is seldom conclusive and without doubt. It is probably often a mass of contradiction. That fact cannot prevent action however. If there is a potential risk to the country if certain parts of the information turn out to be true, the President has to decide whether to ignore the information, or act based on the limited information he has. If he acts and it isn't true, then he looks bad, and has led us into aggressive action against a party who wasn't deserving of such action. However, if he doesn't act and it is true, then Americans die. It's an extremely difficult job. Not one I would want. I don't know what I would do with conflicting information. Do you?
How does Mr. Waldman know Bush wasn't acting based on the very scenario I laid out instead of intentionally manipulating the intelligence to get what he wanted. He shows nothing that supports his assertion, yet you seem determined to buy into it, hook, line, and sinker. That tells me a lot about your political perspective. Instead of reading everything with doubt and a critical mind, you accept anything that fits into your preconceived view of the world. If Bush lied to Congress, which is illegal, then why wasn't he prosecuted, or impeached? I doubt the evidence you hang your hat on rises anywhere close to the kind of evidence required to prove anything in a legal proceeding.
You either have completely missed my point or are intentionally sidestepping it.
My original point was and still is that the Democrats were behind the US entering Iraq. It wasn't until Public support soured that the Bush lied mantra came about to cover their asses. That is what I meant by no link will change my mind Levi.
Whether we should or should not have been there is cast aside once we had invaded and lost US military personnel.
I'm not missing your point I just think it BS since they congress was lied to. I've already told you where you can read how the CIA/Tenet tried to stop Bush from saying the famous 16 words. I wonder if anybody here saying I cherry pick information can explain why I brought Paul O'Neill into this conversation.
Levi, Don't you think it's funny that the Bush lying angle didn't come out until public support started falling? Doesn't that seem a little odd to you.
Secondly, Congress had access to the intelligence, it's not as if the speech by Bush is all they went off of to determine their vote.
The leaders of the Democratic Party then, and most of them now voted to go. The underlings and junior members did not. If what you say is correct then it seems to me the wrong people are in charge of the party.
Lastly, it doesn't matter now. Hindsight is 20/20, I doubt if anyone on here thinks at this point we should've gone into Iraq, I don't. You can't mix politics and war, it does not work and only gets more American troops killed. We should only go to war when we're willing to unleash hell and as a last resort. Winning hearts and minds is a losing strategy.
I'm telling you right here right now you obviously have not read much about this, or it been very selective.
Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....
/
George W. Bush
I guess you are right, Levi. Guy clearly lied and falsified intel. All of us need to read up more. You told us right here, right now, and you are right right.
Hoodwinked. Hoodwinked is the only word I can think of.
Over the past few months, as [the weapons inspectors] have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits....
It is obvious that there is an attempt here, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons....
/
George W. Bush
I guess you are right, Levi. Guy clearly lied and falsified intel. All of us need to read up more. You told us right here, right now, and you are right right.
Hoodwinked. Hoodwinked is the only word I can think of.
Ok, I'm telling you here and now I don't care what you think. It was 13 years ago, we can argue all night about how you're justifying a vote for Hillary, but no one wants to read that.
It wasn't unpopular until we all realized it was a lie. Bush planned on invading Iraq at some point the moment he became President. Nothing was going to stop him from doing so and 9/11 gave him the PERFECT excuse...convenient. All he needed was some small lies to provide the reasoning. Al Queda was not in Iraq, and they did not have chemical weapons. Both lies told with a straight face. Bush figured he'd probably find both and he was wrong. All he did was make the Middle East 100x worse.
Actually while some of your details are correct, you are totally wrong about why the Middle East is in this shape now. TBH it is because Obama pulled us out of the area because he was advised that Iraqi soldiers should be able to hold the fort together and we needed more troops in Afghanistan. Once we pulled out of Iraq, in order to avoid another a Viet Nam we were told, this current situation was our destiny.
Going in was wrong, and coming out early was way worse than going in. America!
Going in was wrong, and coming out early was way worse than going in. America!
It became unpopular after we overthrew Saddam, and we all thought the hard part was over.
The insurgency is what made it unpopular.
The rest of your post is nothing but what you WANT to believe.
The Middle East is a cauldron, Isis came about because we left Iraq before they were ready purely for political reasons, and now we're back over there cleaning up a mess we created Whether you or I think we should've been there is irrelevant once we overthrew their government. How many people have been killed because we left?
As for the Middle East being 100x worse, look no further than the Arab Spring our government cheered along. Boy that turned out great, I guess that's Bush's fault as well.
We're arguing about things we can't change, it's happened. The best thing we can do is gtfo of the Middle East, but we won't.
And, per the same source, Bill's fees and appearances kicked into another gear as soon as Hillary announced her run for President.
I'd pay Hilary Clinton $20 million dollars to never have to hear her shrill whiny voice again. Can't imagine actually paying to hear her talk*.
*Obviously they're paying for the corruption and access, under the guise of her talking, but she's still talking.
*Obviously they're paying for the corruption and access, under the guise of her talking, but she's still talking.
Similar threads
