COMMENTS:
Typo: *this pre-war "intelligence" not these pre-war "intelligence"
"Shouldn't they have questioned these pre-war "intelligence" a little more vigorously?"
Only if one assumes the president is a boob or a liar. The call to war in defense of the nation is the most serious declaration a president can make. Contradicting it leads to accusations of treason. This is one more reason why Bush deserves to be impeached.
^So it should have went unquestioned?
LIBIGOTS don't want to admit they wanted to go to war just as much as the president did, based on the same information the president had.
^I wouldn't go as far as saying the Democrats had the same information the President had.
I would, they were both under the impression that there were WMD's in Iraq, and they both knew that Iraq was a staging area for terrorism.
I'm not one to buy into the conspiracy theories about oil, even if the information that the war was based on was incorrect.
LIBIGOTS will push every crazy scheme they can think of to make it all about oil, or worse, systematic genocide, war crimes, etc.
I'm not even saying all this in a wild whirlwind RA RA BUSH IS #1 sort of statement, it's just irritating me that LIBIGOTS want to turn tail and act as though they were always against the war.
It is the responsibility of every member of congress to question what the president proposes. It doesn't matter whether the president is a genius or an idiot.
Voted : Republicans 50%- Democrats 50%
We're all in the stew together...
Voted : Republicans 65% - Democrats 35%
Jappy, you seem to forget that America was behind the war because at that time most didn't realize that the RepubliCUNTS and their gutless Chimp leader were pathological liars. As far as Democrats being privy to the same intelligence, that's complete bullshit and you know it (but won't admit it). The Whitehouse manufactured intelligence and led America to war. And that's life. That's the world in which we live. Nothing is new under the sun. The Gulf of Tonkin was a bogus hoax designed to get America "seriously" involved in Vietnam. Hell, the Spanish American war was started by Hearst and Pulitzer. I guess the moral to all this is that it's better to be a manufacturer then a consumer of "White House intelligence."
"For one thing their votes permitted the war."
And which votes were those? Did the President specifically ask Congress for the authority to go to war in Iraq?
If there was a Democrat in the White House, instead of Bush, we would not have gone to war in Iraq. Of course, if there was just about any other Republican in the White House we would not have gone to war in Iraq.
The blame for this Iraq debacle really lays squarely with Bush and the neocons.
And despite the denials of the rightwingers, oil did play a part in the delusions that sent the Bush Administration to war.
than ^
Oh, cracky ! You and your libigots and your crystal balls !
There was disinformation about "yellowcake" in Niger. And there's still disinformation on the amount of violence in Iraq now, according to the Iraq Study Groups report.
A few people knew before that big push to war not to trust things from Bush's mouth.
I'm sorry kids but no amount of name-calling and blame-tossing will make up for Bush's lying at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
He has even further to fall, mark my word.
No matter how mad you are at the people who don't trust him it won't change anything, it just looks deperate right now.
by Jyl on Wed Dec 06, 06 4:33pm
[+]
Cranky
"And which votes were those? Did the President specifically ask Congress for the authority to go to war in Iraq?"
The Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up "weapons of mass destruction".
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.
"If there was a Democrat in the White House, instead of Bush, we would not have gone to war in Iraq." Maybe the ones that voted in favour for permitting this war to happen should have asked themselves that same question. If they didn't think the war was justified then they shouldn't have approved it.
^ 29 voting for the measure and 21 against? Strange of 21 Dems voted against and 1 Rep voted against then where did that last missing vote come from? Anyone?
So, if one Democrat votes for something then they are all responsible for it?
And since we were all lied to by Bush and his cronies that makes us all responsible for responding in what may have been a rational manner to a false scenario? Sounds like blaming the victim to me. And that goes for both Republicans and Democrats.
And since Bush never allowed proper verification, but went to war (which is what we all know now that he was going to do anyway) without actually finding out if there were weapons of mass destruction, he abused the authority he was given anyway. Another reason to impeach Bush.
The evidence bush used to go to war was supported by both clintons to advocate war (one actually ordered the bombing, the other just supported it), one kennedy, the french, and the majority of the democratic party.
Now they claim they were tricked.
I guess you could say they voted for the war before they voted against it.
And I guess you could say that no neocon has gone to fight in the Iraq War that he supports. 
Insofar as assigning partisan blame has no impact on strategies to move forward, it is pointless and counterproductive.
^I'm not so sure. Some as you see weren't aware their party was partly responsible.
^The vote you mentioned was conditional on finding weapons of mass destruction.
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
.
by Jyl on Thu Dec 07, 06 6:45am
[+]
CI -- Right. So if causing someone to acknowledge the degree of responsibility their party bears in going to war in Iraq results in their re-thinking or re-formulating their ideas about a) what would be the best course of action to take now and b) their elected representatives, then it is useful.
(Also, I know it's unnecessary to explain the sweeping generalizations implied by some of the words contained in the previous sentence to you, CI. But we can never afford to disregard the effect of language on thoughts and vice-versa.)
Skylab is right.
"The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed."
That didn't happen. Bush committed a fraud by declaring that they had failed, when they hadn't. Bush never intended for them to work. He was going to war all along. It was a con job from the start. Again, you're blaming the victim. Again, Bush should have been impeached for the lie the killed almost 3,000 Americans and has already cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Make that "billions."
The atmosphere at the time was not conducive to those questioning or against the war based on available information and to allow a responsible leader to be in a position to act seemed like the right thing to do...but it was not their "party"... had this misadventure been successful do you think the Republicans would give anyone credit ? I think not...
elvislennon, WINNER!
That's a good point, sooth. It was soon enough after 9/11 that revenge flooded the hearts and overcame the minds of the populace. The feeling was so strong and palpable that people wanted someone to pay.
Why is everybody given me grief? If you don't believe the Democrats shoulder some of the blame then vote that way. Shesh.
thesoothsayer
Let's imagine if things did go well. Would there be Democrats saying "we would have taken part of the blame if things went wrong". Oh no you wouldn't.
soothsayer
I do agree that questioning a war after 9/11 would have seemed unpartiotic and the Republicans used that to their advantage.
|
