E
EastUS
Guest
"They encouraged and supported Iraqi dissidents in their efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein." I just LOVE the "nobility" of standard-issue "liberals" 🙄 Ummm..this actually "makes sense" to them = "Hey bozos!..How about you hopelessly rising up against a merciless, murderous sociopath and get yourselves and your families tortured and killed for our latte-sipping amusement!?"..."The desert's a big place..and there's plenty more room for mass graves after all!" "Heck..it probably won't even be bad for the enviornment" and, of course: "We liberals are far too good to actually shed any blood for you..or do anything to actually help you..but; we're fine on letting you and yours die terrible, and futile deaths for our BS agendas"...Words truly fail to serve herein.
Tug McGroin
Senior
In the late nineties the Clinton Administration repeatedly warned members of Congress as well as the American public about the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the free world. Without question, Democrats were all to mindful of Hussein’s connections to terrorist organizations, his ownership and use of WMD’s against his own people and his desire to terrorize Israel and the US.
The fact that the Democrats in Congress were aware of the problem is all too evident by the various comments made by them in post #32. You assume, without reference or fact that these comments were made “by speakers who were opposed to unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the United States.â€
As the Clinton Administration never issued a Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq, Democrats in Congress were never afforded the opportunity to support or oppose military force against Iraq.
When these same Democrats were offered the chance to support or oppose military action against Iraq, history will show the Democrats fully supported the authorization to use military force against Iraq.
For more information see:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...n_10-11-02.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...n_10-11-02.html
Tug McGroin
Senior
And no, I still will not go on that hunting trip with you.
Come on now!! How bout I buy the gas . . . I have connections!!
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,580
- Reaction score
- 1,455
I'm surprised at you...you claim to be this patriotic soldier who fought for his country and whose stepsons fought for this country...how many liberals died during WWII, Korea and Vietnam? Or were the only soldiers in those wars republican conservatives?
My grandfather fought in WWI and came out of his trench to pull a comrade to safety...that mans wife laid a medal on his chest at his funeral. The medal was awarded to her husband, but she said that were it not for him, her husband wouldn't have been around to ever earn it. He was a died in the wool democrat...and liberal for the 86 years he lived.
My father fought in WW2 - he too was a "liberal democrat"...couldn't stand W as governor and died just after he became president. But I'm sure that if he were alive, he'd be grouped into your group of "liberals who were far too good to shed any blood".
I seem to recall one of the biggest liberals of all time...FDR. Seems he sent some folks in to help out another group. Of course...the beacon of the Republican party...Ronald Regan...never served in the war my liberal democrat father fought in. Hell...it may well have been a liberal democrat who pulled GHW Bush's wet ass out of the ocean during the war.
In my opinion, the only reason the Dems voted to authorize Bush to go to war was because they were fearful of the right wing republicans painting them as being unpatriotic or weak. I do blame them for giving Bush the authority to go to war but I believe they were minipulated by Bi-partisian politics. I know where I lived most people could see right thru the administrations games and most new that it was all B.S.. And if I remember correctly Clinton warned the Bush administration that it was Bin Laden that posed the most immediate threat to the USA not Saddam. I also think I recall that it came out later that the Bush administration already wanted to take Saddam out right after they entered the White House and before the 9/11 attacks. This war was not about terrorism it was about revenge and also a short sighted theory that we could democratize Iraq and have a base to secure a continuous flow of oil to the United States. 9/11 was used as a cover for what they wanted to do all along. Again, this is only my own rehtoric and I have absolutely no evidence of this but I do believe every word of it.
Do you actually think that all the soldiers fighting this war are conservative republicans? Of course You couldnt because that kind of person would be a very closed minded individual and I am sure you are not like that. And as far as Iraqi's rising up against Saddam and being killed, I guess you dont think many of them were killed inoccently by this war? It is funny how conservatives are against abortion but they dont mind killing innocent living people in a war. That will always be ironic to me.
Wrong.
I supplied a link to a Snopes page that analyzed the tired right wing propaganda chain email that you copied and placed all those quotes in the proper context and perspective.
You have this stunning way of interjecting your intelligence.
Looking down your nose again,Brainiac?
Tug McGroin
Senior
I supplied credible links for every statement I posted. I left it up to the reader to review the statements, in their entirety to draw their own conclusions. You’re right though, I was wrong to assume that the resident Progressive could reach any reasonable conclusion about the statements without Snopes.com doing the thinking and reasoning for them.
Let’s review how we got into this argument. Cooper43 made the ludicrous statement that “Saddam was no more of a threat to us than is any other Middle East countryâ€. I posted statements made by members of the Clinton Administration and Democrats in Congress that expressed grave concern about Saddam Hussein’s acquisition and possession of WMD’s. You responded by telling me that these statements were taking out of proper context and perspective. You threw around the term “taken out of context and perspective†as to dismiss the urgency of their statements and to disavow any blame the Democrats would accept.
The Snopes.com article you linked actually confirms the statements were true and correct but acknowledges that some were taken out of context. Placing these quotes back into their perspective context does not, in any way change their meaning. Snopes.com says they are true. I suggest you read it.
I do not accept the Snopes.com notion that “the course of statements clearly indicate the speaker was clearly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the USâ€. This would falsely assume that Snopes.com knew what the speakers intentions would be if asked to vote for or against military force against Iraq. It’s obvious that Snopes.com was very wrong with this statement. These very speakers voted for US military intervention in Iraq.
Your accusation that I’m spreading “right wing propaganda†doesn’t intimidate me in the least. What I find tiring is the extent that some resident Progressive will go to to apologize for the inept actions of the Clinton Administration and Democrats (past and present).
C
Cosworth
Guest
As opposed to the actions that have been taken by the conservatives past and present? A Oliver Hardy quote comes to mind "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into".
The part that confuses me most is the speech that Cheney gave in 1994 that no one seem to want to address, not even the 'liberal media". He said invading Iraq would be a mistake (he used the term quagmire). He asked what would you put in the place of the Iraqi government that was removed? He said we wold see parts of Iraq being sectioned off by their adversaries (Kurds, Syria and Iran). 193 dead soldiers was too many in 1994, apparently the value of the US soldier has decreased substantially in 10 years.
So what changed? Everything Cheney predicted has happened. he knew what woul happen and yet he sent troops in to be slaughtered and he ruined this country. If that is not treason I do not know what is. Cheney knew Bush I could not go to Iraq because he knew what would happen. Their actions and the actions of Congress are contemptible.
The US Congress is tasked by the US Constitution to over see the Executive branch as a "checks and balance". I believe that a large portion of them voted to authorize the war for two main reasons 1. to cover thair ass so they could get re-elected and 2. because they believed the idiots like Rumsfeld who told them it would be short and quick.
If that is really your argument, talk about weak! How do you think those people look now for having authorized to go to war for such a silly reason? "I'm scared of what I might look like otherwise." Most of them have tried to bury their votes under the rug. This all goes back to the natural tendency to blame others for their own actions. Right now the democrats are having a field day bashing the republicans in hindsight, when they themselves attested to the same beliefs as the White House. Now today, the liberals desperately try to discount anything they said in the past using the "taken out of context" argument (except that the context clearly and unmistakably does not support this theory). Acountability and responsibility are hard things to find these days, but the record holds the truth.
Oh but Tug, Snopes is the almighty truth! (Well, except when it doesn't work in our favor) :blink:
E
EastUS
Guest
By no means. I know of very few that are much enamoured of the "liberals" though. How many of "the soldiers fighting this war" do you actually know?....OK then.
"Of course You couldnt because that kind of person would be a very closed minded individual and I am sure you are not like that".. That's quite "kind" of you..and no ...I rather imagine myself as hardly "close-minded", but I've never confused adhereing to given Principles as being "close-minded"..and I'm certain that we'd have abundant differences on our perspectives. I'm no fan of either political "party", in that I see both's "leadership" as naught but largely collections of essentially narcicisstic sociopaths, who crave power, money and adoration above all else...and who's actual "values" are mostly notable by their absence. Feel free to defend the "values", of the left as it amuses you to do so. The supposed ideals of both left and right have admirable conceptual basis...but simply..aren't much acted on in reality. The left seems to fantasize that conflict's completely avoidable within ANY possible context, and finds war to be just plain "icky"..and even strives to elevate cowardice into being some fantasized "Virtue". The right "leadership" doesn't much care about war..so long as those in power have no children in harm's way. I find both sets of "values, as actually practiced...to be equally contemptable...but..I've never been able to cheer for cowardice, so there's some bias within.
I've always believed that war's the last resort. The taking of lives should NEVER be entered into lightly. Having said that....once combat's initiated..there should be no "halfway" measures, that serve only to increase the sacrifices of our young people's lives.
I admit I can not speak factually for why Dems voted to give Bush the authority to go to war but it doesnt take away the final responsibility that Bush is the one who chose this war. And this was basically a unilateral war. Most all other countries supported more time for inspection. But Bush wanted to act fast before it became obvious there were no weapons of mass destruction. With every day that goes by there is more evidence that the intellegence reports that led to the invation were spun by white house neo-cons to be able to go into Iraq. So what is the truth? We all have the right to our own truth. I personally feel in my gut that this whole thing was planned out in the very begining and even if 9/11 had never happened we would have still gone into Iraq for some reason that the Bush administration had planned. They used terroism as thier first excuse, then I think it was weapons of mass destruction, then we were liberators who would be welcomed, then it became a policy of building democrocy in the region. I just hope the next president can mend some of the fences this administration has torn down.
E
EastUS
Guest
Sigh...OK then 🙄
"I just hope the next president can mend some of the fences this administration has torn down." Specifically....Where/What fences?
"...but it doesnt take away the final responsibility that Bush is the one who chose this war."..Umm..even for the briefest of moments...Do you honestly, actually believe....that that pathetic, halfwitted twit, all of himself...sent the forces to war? 😉
"We all have the right to our own truth." Honestly?..That's more aptly: "We all have the right to our own fantasies"..any/all "Truth" is determined within actual reality..and real events. Fantasyland excursions by any individual, are personal property....which I'll properly leave alone..I liked Dumbo myself..but..I've never expected to see smiling, flying elephants outside of Disneyland. "our own truth" presumes socially acceptable, ut still delusional states imho.
"Reality!!??...Whatta' Concept!!"...Robin Williams.
