ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq
ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq
In Oct. 2003, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq. Just 23 senators voted against it.
But according to a new ABC News survey, 33 out of the original 77 senators “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.” Five senators — including three Republicans — said that in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong that the matter should never have even been brought to a vote. These results would mean that a vote to authorize war in Iraq today would be 43-57, and the resolution would fail. (Full list of senators here.)
ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper presented the survey results today on Good Morning America, noting that the survey of the senators was “a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.” Watch it:
According to a December CBS News poll, just 39 percent of the American public now believes that the “United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq.”
Transcript:
DIANE SAWYER: An ABC News survey of the senators who voted to go to war suggests the President may have a tough time selling his plan on Capitol Hill. ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper in Washington has the results for us this morning. Jake?
JAKE TAPPER: Good morning, Diane. ABC News surveyed all 77 senators who voted to authorize foce in Iraq and asked them a simple question — knowing what you know now, would you vote the same way? The shocking results. The Senate that so overwhelmly voted to give the President more powers, Democrats and Republicans, would not do so today.
[BEGIN CLIP]
VOICE: Mr. Harkin — aye.
TAPPER: In October 2002, the vote to go to war in Iraq was overwhelming. 77 for, 23 against.
VOICE: The joint resolution is passed.
[END CLIP]
TAPPER: But an ABC News survey of those senators shows that knowing then what they know now, only 43 would vote the same way, and 57 would likely vote against the war. The resolution would not pass. Thirty-three U.S. senators who voted to go to war indicated to ABC News that they would vote differently knowing then what they knew now. Or that pre-war intelligence alleging Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was so wrong, the Senate would have never even voted on the war. While overwhelmingly the regrets came from Democrats, a significant number came from Republicans.
[SNIP]
TAPPER: Overall our survey, Diane, indicates — a survey of the senators who voted to go to war — a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.
SAWYER: Well Jake, that’s it. More than 40 senators saying they would take back a vote. I have never heard of this.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
How is it that us average Americans knew it was a bad idea before 33 effing Senators did?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm57 to 43 is damn close to IMPEACHMENT TIME!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThere is a perfect way for these Senators to make amends: voting in favor of impeaching Bush.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pmIf the Dems don’t see the recent polls of Americans that are against this war and now this one of the Senators themselves as a go ahead to take charge and reverse the course of the occupation they are blind. The war was won. The military did what was asked. Don’t continue the occupation.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Speaking personally, yes.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pmwhat if Congress were to revoke its authorization for war?
(talk about your constitutional crises…yeehaa)
January 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm.
Tracy,
We knew it wasn’t worth it. We knew Bush was incompetent.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:31 pmintelligence was so wrong- make that so FIXED to fit policy! IMPEACHMENT!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI knew Bush was a very dangerous, scary, simpleminded, redneck back in 2000. I was fearful for our country before he was installed.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:36 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Tracy,
Since you want to talk about things in fantasy land….what if there was absolute proof that there were no WMDs would you still be for invading Iraq?
By the way South Korea has WMDs. Should we attack them?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#6
So you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pmDamnit! I knew I should have saved those Pro-Iraq form letters she would respond to my e-mails with!!!!!!!
28 indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now:
17. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas
But then again, I’d like to think all the correspondence I sent her made her change her mind!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThere never was any real evidence of wmd in Iraq. All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point.
They were all afraid to appear “unpatriotic” and swallowed the kool-aid on command. Now they are beginning to realize that they will go down in history as either being stupid and uninformed or willfully destructive.
They all want to blame the “intelligence” but anyone with access to a computer was able at the time to research the issue and come up with their own conclusions if they had given it a try. They all owe the entire world a huge apology.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:39 pmThis is stupid. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda. Let’s focus on what we can do to change the future.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:40 pmWhat is really telling–and what wasn’t mentioned in the clip–is that only 15 Senators stood by their vote to authorize the war. The rest of them either refused to answer the question, were too sick to answer it (Johnson, Helms), or were dead (Strom Thurmond).
January 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pm#14
“There never was any real evidence of wmd in Iraq. All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point.”
That was well after the invasion and the removal of Saddam’s regime from power.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pmABC mislabeled some of these senators as R’s rather than D’s (easy to do considering their vote). I believe Baucus, Cleland, Kohl, and Torricelli are D’s, are they not?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmTracy - does stupidity run in your family or is it just you?
Facts do have a liberal bias!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm#12: So you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Having a “problem” with countries aspiring to possess nuclear weapons is very different from believing that we should go to war with them. Have you not learned this lesson from the current debacle in Iraq?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pmYet, those same senators will not try to correct their wrong.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pmTo them admitting isn’t the first step to recovery.
In the coming months, the list will be bigger than 28 Senators who are now questioning their vote for ‘Iraq war authorising use of force’,when Congress begins to Subpoena people to testify who were involved in this war from start.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#17: That was well after the invasion and the removal of Saddam’s regime from power.
This is simply wrong. The U.N. weapons inspectors, as well as numerous other sources, clearly stated that they believed Iraq’s WMD’s were gone or not usable. The Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence to fit the policy they had already decided upon.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmThe question of whether or not Congress can stop the bushco “surge” is moot. Just impeach the useless bastard and the problem goes away, along with all the other problems Congress will have with him. Just think of all the time saved in not having to override his vetoes. My bad! He won’t veto the bills, he will just do his form letter signing statement ala Cheney: “Congress eff yourself!”
January 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pmSounds like the Overture to Impeachment is wafting up from the orchestra pit. I can’t wait to see wingnuts gnashing teeth and rending garments as the proceedings unfold, and Dubbie is finally, publicly, irrevocably branded for the obseqious tool/shill/punk he has always been. I’ll have no choice but to spend the rest of my days taunting them, and reminding everyone of how it happened, or was allowed to happen, so we never have to go through another of these political night-terrors, as has happened since 2000.
Impeach, Convict, Incarcerate!!!!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmImpeach Bush, Pat Robertson for President in ‘08.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pmImpeach Bush, Pat Robertson for President in ‘08.
Comment by Daryll
I would back both of those actions. Watching Pat address the nation in a presidential run on the Repub platform would be hilarious.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pmSo you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy
That wasn’t the question, Tracy, was it?
January 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm#25 tom
Just for fun add castrate. After all, he has been having his way with us against our will for six years.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmTracy,
So you like how Bush ignores NK and lets them proliferate? At least Clinton contained them, and kept them close, like you should do with your enemies. But Bush is too stupid to see that.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:58 pmThe poor wingers, now that they can’t scream “We win elections! The people agree with us so STU!” they don’t know how to do battle on-line anymore.
That was always their default.
Now they are grumpy losers, like fat and lonely Dennis Hastert.
Suck it up losers……….and thank us for the minimum wage increase you are about to get.
-GSD
January 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmTracy,
We know that you really think Iraq had WMD’s and they just moved them. All the hardcore GOPers think that.
January 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmSo how do you run a government through hindsight?
ROTFL
January 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThe list shows Lieberman and McCain are not up to change their minds about anything..they want more troops sent to Iraq..and if you leave it to Lieberman (now Independent)..he likes us to invade Syria,Lebanon,Iran…to fullfil the NeoCons/PNAC doctrine dreams. But Lieberman never said anything about invading N.Korea..I wonder why?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
..but they didn’t so what is your point. Are saying the war is justified because we acted out of ignorance. That doesn’t sound like taking responsibility. That sounds like someone incapable of learning from past experience.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmBecause even if Iraq did have WMDs you still would have been against invading Iraq.
Comment by Tracy
Ma’am, we have absolutely no business as the worlds police force. Invading a soverign nation is not part of our national conscience. We usually go to the aid of countries who have been invaded. BTW, we have nukes. We have used them on our enemies. Should another country decide we should be invaded?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pm#11
Absolutely, but I also would have been for doing everything throughout the 1990s politically and covertly thru elements inside Iraq in order to oust Sadamm and not just sit there and let sanctions make the Iraqi people suffer unnecessarily.
“By the way South Korea has WMDs. Should we attack them?”
I think you ment N. Korea and no considering nukes are the ultimate deterrent and considering they have already demonstrated to have the ability to deliver it. South Korea is way to close and the North Koreans have alot of troops just waiting to invade. The WMDs that were thought to be inside Iraq were chemical and biological weapons. The ability of Iraq to effectively deliver these weapons, say to Israel however was very limited. In the first Gulf War when Saddam’s military cabability was very much in tact and was absolutely known to have chemical weapons for instance, he was obviously not able to deliver them, eventhough a few SCUDs landed in Tel Aviv with no traces of chemical agents.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmHappy Guy,
My hind sight has not changed since 2000. Its the same. I knew the chimp was a moron then, I know he is now. I didn’t want to go into Iraq then, and I still think we shouldn’t have.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSo how do you run a government through hindsight?
ROTFL
Comment by Happy Guy
Obviously not Happy Slappy. Do you use history to make a decision in your everyday life? Like you might know where a speed trap is or something, and avoid it next time?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:11 pm#19
I has to run in your family and you as well for you to make a statement like that! LOL!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pmThe opening sentence reads: “In Oct. 2003, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq.”
I think that should read “Oct. 2002″
I hate typos.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmThey should have cracked the books a bit harder back then, eh? Sorry Senators (and that includes you, Hillary) you failed, big time, in the biggest vote any of you will ever have in your lives. Let’s continue to wipe the slate clean in 2008, let’s vote Al Gore.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmhttp://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
I know the families of 3000 dead soldiers are glad to here this news. If the elected officials had done their job and the 109th congress didn’t rubber stamp everything Bush told them to do maybe those soldiers would not have died. It’s like not giving a person somethng to eat and 4 years later saying I would have given them food but it’s to late.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#23
Show us their statements then.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmTracy,
Can you make fun of yourself? No, cuz your a crotchity ol’ stuck up prude.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmI agree with Naj. What’s done is done and all we can do is learn from the mistakes/manipulations/treachery.
I hope that people have wised up and continue to educate themselves and vow to not get manipulated again!
We need to demand transparency and insist on our voices being heard by those we pay to represent us and the Constitution.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm1. We knew there were no WMDs and that the excuses were trumped up before the invasion. We repeatedly called and wrote Congress and were ignored. How is it we, poor plan average citizens, knew this, and Congress did not?
2. Who the h&^# are these 43 or so deluded fools who appear willing to still support this insane act of voting for an unjust illegal war that has destroyed our standing, is destroying our army, and is bankrupting us as a nation, both fiscally and morally? They do not deserve to be in Congress. The people who keep voting them into office are as guilty as they are for voting for this war. Ultimately, the blood is on their hands.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmWhy did they vote for it at the time? Political expediency. Now that it is a political time bomb they are changing their tune. Predictable, but depressing.
These douchebags wouldn’t know leadership if it smacked them in the face.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#28
I already got the answer, so I was just posing another.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pm#8 Was?
#11 President Bush was still in favor of invading under those circumstances. He Has said more than once that knowing then what he knows today he still would have invaded. To me that sounds like he wanted to do it regardless of the circumstances or consequences.
#17 Actually Tracy at the time the inspectors already in the country pretty much said that they were finding nothing. Only in Washington did anyone say for certain that they had them. In fact only in Washington did anyone say “yes they have them and we know where they are…” which leads to a number of questions..
If they knew where these WMD were prior to the invasion, why did they not inform the UN Inspectors of the whereabouts of said WMD?
If they knew where they were with no presence in the country, how did they lose track of them?
If they knew where they were prior to coming in the country, why do they now admit they made a mistake and there really were none?
These questions along with the presidents willingness to invade regardless of the evidence should concern people…all people without regard to their nationality or politcal affiliation.
#30 People like tracy blame clinton for North Korea in spite of the fact that NK has produced all their weapons grade matterial under Bush’s watch after Bush dropped the agreements negotiated by the CLinton Camp
I have a theory on why bush seems to like to break treaties and violate international law. To me this current administration seems to project quite abit. What they project onto opponants typically ends up being what they end up doing. So the administration assumes no one will stand by treaties or agreeements because they themselves have no intention of ever standing by any.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:17 pmThere was nothin’ like a little good old-fashioned fascist neo-colonial, imperialist aggression in the 21st century in the American war on Iraq to warm the hearts of Bush, Cheney, Feinstein and the goose-stepping majorities of our House and Senate after being warmed up by a little High Treason on 9-11…
January 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmCharmed, I’m sure…
Tracy,
Can’t you answer any of my questions?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pm#32
Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmTracy,
Here’s one for ya:
“Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as “shaky,” and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
“I think they chose to ignore us,” Blix said.
Now go do some research why don’t ya? Might do you some good.l
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmI don’t know what is more astounding. That the 30%ers are offering up the argument that “Gee, so you were right, but wouldn’t you have looked really stupid if you were wrong?”. Or, that the “enlightened” senators say that they wouldn’t have voted the way that they did while doing (virtually) nothing to reverse that bad decision.
To the senators I say: Wake up and get us out of Iraq now and then begin the impeachment process.
To the 30%ers I say: Admit your mistakes and grow from it instead of taking the path of a coward and blaming others. So you were wrong, get over it and start listening to those that were right instead of criticizing them for not being as wrong as you.
Happy New Year! Go Nancy!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pmSo you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy #12
Personally…
…I’ve got MORE of a problem with DELUSIONAL, FANATIC…
…inbred Bushite TRAITORS like YOU (Trashy)…
…owning ANY kind of weapons!
your “kind” (right wing Bush worshipping al Crackkker scum) are more of a danger to us (and our freedom, democracy diversity and prosperity)…
…than Iran OR NK…
January 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmTracy,
There was no slam dunk, even from the get-go. There were questions about the intelligence, and they were ignored. Powell was duped, as you were, and still are.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#36
“Ma’am, we have absolutely no business as the worlds police force.”
That’s Mr. and that is your OPINION.
“Invading a soverign nation is not part of our national conscience. We usually go to the aid of countries who have been invaded.”
Reactive rather than pro-active is what happened with Hitler.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmI agree big papa.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#
Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Umm so was Bush Sr.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#52
If you would ask on worth answering.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pm“So how do you run a government through hindsight?”
Something called accountability comes to mind followed by empeachment followed by jail time.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhy didn’t the ABC survey ask the Senators who had voted against the war whether they regretted their decision?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:30 pmre #13 (myself):
If any of your Senators are on the list, PLEASE write them and THANK them for seeing the truth (finally).
We were able to influence the elections, but we can’t go silent now!
January 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pmReactive rather than pro-active is what happened with Hitler.
Comment by Tracy
And that was taken care of correctly because it was just.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmGuess all the trolls got together and Tracy drew the short straw. Save your breath guys, nothing you say will change this guy’s opinions.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmhind sight is 20/20. I guess Kerry and the rest of the pro war guys want to simply walk away from there responsiblity for getting us into this war.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pmTracy that was extremely weak. You need a nap.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:45 pm#67,
It is “hind sight” for you. Many people, including those in government, here, and throughout the country saw this fiasco for what it was and called it from the beginning. You and your ilk branded them “traitors” and “cowards” and “libruls” and “terrorist sympathizers”, etc…
So why won’t you listen to the people that have been right all along and instead insist on following the lead of those who have been wrong all along? Doesn’t say much for your character now does it?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pmRR - I totally agree!!
Oh this is an interesting day I must say. The planets must be coming into some kind of alignment when RR and Cindy Sheehan both agree on something (that getting us out of Iraq should be priority number one).
I don’t think we should let any of them get away with blaming bad intelligence. How dumb do they think we are? (rhetorical question)
They either knew the war was wrong and were too weak to stand up or they didn’t research the issue sufficiently and therefore were not acting responsibly with the powers vested in them by those they represent.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pm67. What? You put Kerry at the top of that list. Not Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, DeLay, Frist, etc………
January 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmHistorically, I know where the speed traps are on my Interstate. But I wouldn’t be dumb enought to use that history to make a decision about my current driving behavior now would I Rogerx2 ?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmI still can’t believe anyone bought into it.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmTracy sez:
That’s a lie, Tracy, and you know it.
Three words: Downing Street Memo.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#6 So you don’t have a problem with Iran (potenitally) or N. Korea have WMDs?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Actually, I have a problem with the US having them! As well as everyone else! And we have more than every other country out together.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:54 pm#50
“#17 Actually Tracy at the time the inspectors already in the country pretty much said that they were finding nothing.”
Yes and Saddam not allowing them unfettered access certainly didn’t raise any eyebrows.
“If they knew where these WMD were prior to the invasion, why did they not inform the UN Inspectors of the whereabouts of said WMD?”
They didn’t know exactly where they were and if they did have them the Iraqis surely weren’t going to let the inspector find them anyway.
“People like tracy blame clinton for North Korea in spite of the fact that NK has produced all their weapons grade matterial under Bush’s watch after Bush dropped the agreements negotiated by the CLinton Camp”
Why did Clinton have to negotiate a deal to STOP producing weapons grade nuke fuel with NK in the first place? BTW did you have a problem with Clinton allowing NK to keep all of their spent fuel rods after the reactor was shut down at Yongbyon?
January 5th, 2007 at 1:56 pm#60
How?…exactly.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#74
Logically, if you feel the war is wrong and even illegal there would then be no bigger issue. If this war is “wrong” and it is getting people killed, nothing would be more important. So, with that in mind, prioirty #1 better be to end this war and get the troops home. Seeing as though the Dems ran there campaign on this issue, they better have Iraq as priority #1.
They would look as bad as repugs messing with petty issues like ethics reform and lobby reform when the “wrong” war is getting Americans killed.
I assume we can all have complete faith that Pelosi will be having a vote to cut all funding for Iraq and a vote demanding we bring all the troops home. Since this “wrong” is getting people killed, we must assume this vote will be happening TODAY and not some petty BS issue. That would look heartless and extremely evil if you truly believe this war is “wrong”.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#65
And millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#56
Man, you should have stayed in retirement.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmAt the end of the first Gulf war, Bush sr, was being advised to enter Iraq, and remove saddam from power. He chose not too. He foresaw, that a full scale military invasion like that would lead to complete chaos, and only make US troops targets in a Iraq.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:03 pmTracy sez:
Still stuck on comparing Saddam to Hitler, huh?
Tell me, how many countries had Saddam annexed before we finally took action?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTracy is not here to answer questions. She’s here to pose strawman arguments. She doesn’t even realize that Bush senior and his most trusted advisers didn’t want to occupy Bagdad. Somehow, she thinks this is a liberal idea. Why even argue with a girl like this?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmTracy sez:
Man, you should have stayed in high school.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:07 pmTrip - its not Saddam wasn’t deterred from invading Kuwait - the exact opposite. April Glaspie was told to emphasize that the US had no interest in Saddam’s dispute with Kuwait…..I guess that could be viewed as appeasement.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pmTracy continues to conflate Saddam with Hitler. Let’s face it: the girl just doesn’t know her history. Tracy, Hitler had taken over most of Europe by force by the time we got involved. He had been responsible for the executions of close to 20 million people in a number of European counties. He declared war on the United States and developed a strategic relationship with another industrial power which had already attacked and declared war on us. Girl, you need to read your history books!
January 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm#74
Original statement:
“All credible reports coming out of Iraq said that previously held wmds were either gone or degraded to an unusable point.â€
Key word, not withstanding the ability to look back in hindsight, is “credible”. There were many reports from multiple intelligence agencies that said the opposite.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pmTerry: “I guess that could be viewed as appeasement.”
You could also view that as a very sophisticated “rope-a-dope.”
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pmAnd millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
And hundreds of thousands have died because the warmongers followed a BS PNAC notion that action must be taken before the other even thinks of making a move. I hate it.
This troll is named Tracy because there’s only a trace of brains in its head.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:15 pm#81
You stated that Bush Sr. was against removing Saddam from Kuwait, not that he was against marching to Baghdad and taking him out completely…a big mistake BTW, because as we all know shortly after the end of the Gulf War in 1991, large numbers of the Iraqi National Congress led an uprising against Saddam which led to us sitting there watching them get slaughtered.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pmTracy sez:
As I told you before, Tracy, three words: Downing Street Memo.
There is ample evidence that the administration knew full well that WMDs were not to be found, and that the intelligence reports were deliberately jury-rigged to support the existing policy decision of invasion.
It’s not that we don’t expect you to lie, Tracy, but just repeating lies that have been refuted already is just lazy.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmTracy sorry, but the VP mentioned multiple times that we know where the WMD are, Rumsfeld mentioned it and President Bush even referred to a chemical lab in NNE Iraq. So again does their incompetence scare you as much as it scares me? And again when the president says that if he knew then what he knows today he would still invade doesn’t that pretty much signal that this war was inevitable regardless of WMD or ties to terrorism? Toss on top of that the fact that the white house is stacked with members of the PNAC and that the war pretty much followed what they wanted. Heck Wolfowitz pretty much said so shortly after the war began. I believe the quote was something about needing a reason to invade that was palatable to the public and the threat of terrorism was it. All of this should make you take notice of the actions of this white house, yet they don’t you will blindly support any policy coming out of the white house regardless of the consequences because he is your guy.
Ok, we’ve heard the president and nearly every right wing pundit talk about how evil and desperate to hang onto power Sadaam was. I think the president even said this is a man who will do anything to maintain his power. I guess now we need to amend that to say he will do anything except use his most powerful weapons which he mysteriously shipped to Syria in the middle of the night completely unnoticed by the US who said we know where the weapons are.
From my understanding of North Korea everything was under seal and inspected regularly. The seals to the plants were not broken until the Bush admin decided that they did not want to honor or extend any agreement that was negotiated by the previous administration. Besides that, just how easy do you think it is to transport nuclear material? Simply put it in your pocket and walk home?
Face it on nearly every level this administration is dishonest, immoral and incompetent. I say nearly every level because they up until now, have been very good at politics, not moral or honest with politics, just good at using them to get their way. But the emperor has strutted in public one to many times and the people have finally been willing to tell him that he’s wearing nothing.
I’ll close with this since being the worlds police man has come up again:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
“President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)
“No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99
“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush
“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.”
-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99
“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. ”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
“My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
“For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“Clinton’s bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)
“It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring “wars of national liberation.”
January 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)
#82
“Tell me, how many countries had Saddam annexed before we finally took action?”
None, but considering he already tried in 1990 with Kuwait, it proved he had the ability and willingness to try.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmAnd millions of people died because the apeasers followed a BS notion that no action can be taken untill the other makes a move. I like it.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
It is no BS notion, Tracy. You have been told so many times already: Preemptive strikes -on the basis that the target may, one day, become a threat- are against international law. It is also contrary to Christian doctrine: A just war can only be launched in self-defense. From that standpoint, the first strike must be in response to an aggression or to forestall an imminent attack.
By defending the preemptive strike doctrine you are, in essence, legitimising the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pmI did no such thing Tracy, you have made it out of whole cloth. If I remember correctly Bush sr. had indicated to the Kurds in northern Iraq, that he would support any revolt against Saddam, but like you said stood by and did nothing when they did. Of course there was always the rumour that Bush told Saddam he didn’t care if Saddam took Kuwait too.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm#83
Bluedog isn’t here to read what was written. She is here to take what others didn’t comprehend initally and build on it.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmTracy, if you are going to use those talking points you should really look them up to see if they are true first. Rumsfeld came out and stated he not only knew Iraq had WMD’s, he knew where they were. He said they were in the area around Tikrit. It was an interview with Stephonopolis.
Saddam also offered unfettered access at the 11th hour and the United States rejected it.
You want to defend this conflict (War has never been declared) then what is your stance on the piss poor actions since it started. (open to all who believe this conflict is the right thing)
Explain Paul Brehmer disbanning the military. For that matter, explain the guy who was placed before Brehmer (name escapes me). He was given no plan.
Explain the complete lack of overisight of the civilian contractors and the billions wasted.
Explain the lack of initial understanding the amount of troops needed and then the continual neglect of increasing troops while something still could have been done in years 1 and 2 of this conflict.
Explain ” I listen to my Generals”
Explain How a uniter, not a divider has been the opposite. Don’t use 9/11 because it has been shown so many times that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Explain how the military hadn’t been given the equipment needed to protect themselves in the first 2 years of this conflict.
Explain how this administration believes they can deplete our reserve and guard forces for this conflict (again, not a war).
Go ahead start some explaining and then if you still want to support this then fine but explain how you can support this conflict after you address the above. Please avoid using slogans/talking points such as “get them there before they get them here” or “spreading democracy” both will be picked apart like a Turkey 4 days after thanksgiving.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pm#78 they have to do all the normal items of governing. They have to work on all phases. Our government is a mess after six years of bad tenants. They need to shore up our democracy as well as work on finding an Iraq Solution. Of course for 4 years my rightwing friends have been telling me that Congress has no say in what the president does in Iraq, so using that logic they can’t do anything. However we all know that is not the case, as all people who think clearly should realize that congress has many things to fix, not just Iraq. Iraq is simply the biggest issue, and you are assuming that they are doing nothing about it. They may very well be doing nothing, or they may very well be working on solutions out of the public eye to be presented only when they find acceptable solutions.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmIt’s pathetic really at this point, with all we now know, that a Bush cultist like Tracy would still be arguing that it was the right thing to do. Cultists will never learn. They have a dogma. It’s like religion — the dear leader is infallible. He cannot make a mistake. Very sad that someone who calls herself an American can be such a simpering, compliant follower.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmTracy: “She is here to take what others didn’t comprehend initally and build on it.”
Tracy, what is it that you don’t comprehend about WWII? Why do you keep acting like Saddam was a “Hitler?” Did you fall asleep in history class?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmTracy, Saddam was just executed for crimes he committed while an ally of the United States and using weapons provided for him by the United States. Does that sound like anything resembling Hitler to you?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#86
“Tracy, Hitler had taken over most of Europe by force by the time we got involved.”
Girl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped? What brilliant foreign policies of countries like France and Britian, let to him run over much of Western Europe n the first place? It wouldn’t be that reactive rather that proactive policy would it? Sit on your butt and wait to be attacked. Brilliant. Israel got it right back in 1967…don’t wait to be invaded when you know it’s about to happen.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pmTrashy (Tracy) isn’t interested in engaging in intellectually HONEST dialogue…
…it is only here to needle, and fill the void in its lonely, worthless existence…
…its false gods (Bushiva and L’il Dick) have abandoned it…
…it is to be pitied, yet ignored like a partially smuushed cockroach that manages to continue crawling with is slimy viscera oozing out…
…leave it alone and it will die…
…slowly…
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmThey didn’t know exactly where they were and if they did have them the Iraqis surely weren’t going to let the inspector find them anyway.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
This is not what the Amerrican public was told. Have you forgotten Sec Rumsfeld’s famous words?
“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
So, we were told the location for those WMD was very well known. Not to mention the UN inspectors were given phony reports on where to find these weapons; all leads came to naught.
considering he already tried in 1990 with Kuwait, it proved he had the ability and willingness to try.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn’t have the means to carry out any of his fantasies. Not with a team of UN inspectors running around the country and making sure all non-compliant weapons found were destroyed.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:38 pmLook, Shrub is a mirror of the Lowest Common Denominators of society, like little Tracy here. You know, the piss-poor education, more brawn than brains ilk.
Stupid is as stupid does, and you does stupid really well.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmTracy is stuck on some wedge issue like gay marriage or abortion.
She could give a rat’s ass about the rest. She is just trying to sound like she made a good choice with her votes.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pm#95
“Just like all real Libs like Kerry were against removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1990?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Umm so was Bush Sr.
Comment by Krazny — January 5, 2007 @ 1:28 pm”
January 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmIf having WMD is a VALID reason for attaking a SOVEREIGN nation, then every nation has the right to attack the United States!
If GW Bush did not want to wait for the “mushroom cloud” as the “smoking gun”, how come he has not launched an attack on North Korea?
How can one LOGICALLY say the United States was “in danger” if we “do not” remove WMD from Iraq, but “not in danger” if we “do not” remove WMD from North Korea?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmTracy, I assume you, as a christian, have read the bible. What do you think Jesus meant by “Blessed are the Peacemakers.” When Bush ignored his own responsibility to go back to the UN under the terms of the congressional authorization, told all the inspectors to get out of the country and proceeded with “shock and awe,” was that a christian thing to do?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pmBlessed are the merciful, for they shall recieve mercy.
Not Tracy.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pmTracy: “Girl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped? What brilliant foreign policies of countries like France and Britian, let to him run over much of Western Europe n the first place? It wouldn’t be that reactive rather that proactive policy would it? Sit on your butt and wait to be attacked. Brilliant. Israel got it right back in 1967…don’t wait to be invaded when you know it’s about to happen.”
Good question, Tracy. If you, as a conservative, knew your history, you wouldn’t want to ask it. Because, it was American conservatives and representatives of American business in the 30’s who argued against getting involved in Europe.
And please try to get your head around this fact: Hitler declared war on us. Saddam never attacked or declared war on us. In fact, Saddam immediately sent condolences to American media the day after the 9-11 attack. He was an enemy of al Qaeda, the people who DID attack us.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmTracy, you have been smacked down with point after point after point. Mark, excellent quotes. The sheer qty. of this game of find the pea is maddening.
Still waiting for explanations Tracy. And if your reading you to Mighty Aphrodite
January 5th, 2007 at 2:47 pmTracy sez:
Yes, of course, because if he ever did start that sort of thing, he’d be impossible to stop…
Oh, wait…
Bush Sr. did stop him, didn’t he? Stopped him rather handily.
Tracy why would you even bring up Kuwait, when it disproves your whole ‘lurking menace’ nonsense so completely?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pmThe only brown people Tracy trusts is the Saudi Royal Family.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmKey word, not withstanding the ability to look back in hindsight, is “credibleâ€.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
This one statement is amazingly obtuse -even by your standards, Tracy
Of course you follow up on the credible reports. Why would you act on those that have no credibility whatsoever?
All your posts are simply ad hoc reasoning to support your opinion that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were justified, inspite of the evidence to the contrary (UN inspections, Downing Street Memo, Niger uranium lies, etc.)
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmGirl, exactly how did Hilter manage to take over much Europe by the time we got off our butts and helped?
don’t wait to be invaded when you know it’s about to happen.
Comment by Tracy
So exactly when did germany invade the US? Trying to second guess history rewrite a different outcome is foolish. WWII started the way it did because of many political, social and economic reasons. To say the US should have attack Germany prior to its invasion of Poland is ludicrous. We didn’t even have tanks then and were pulling our artillery with horses.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou know something I’ve never been able to figure about the The Six Day War is that if Israel was surrounded and about to be overwhelmed by an Arab military machine, how come this invasion-ready juggernaut only took six days to annhilate?
Thanks for reminding of another country with WMD which has a history of invading its neighbors and oppressing ethnic groups inside its borders. Place a call to the White House, they missed a country to preempt.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pm#94
“…are against international law.”
And just who wrote this part international law and who is in charge of enforcing it? I would have figured that after WW2 the European would have leard that doing nothing and making concessions is not a good policy. Although Clinton had no problem violating “international law” by taking out Milosivic. Also according to international law we wouldn’t be allowed to oust the Sudanese government for their sponsoring of genocide in Darfur.
“It is also contrary to Christian doctrine:…”
How?
“From that standpoint, the first strike must be in response to an aggression or to forestall an imminent attack.”
Who defines that aggression? To wait for an imminent attack is insane.
“By defending the preemptive strike doctrine you are, in essence, legitimising the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”
Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTracy, it has cost us 3000 lives, about 25,000 limbs and a half a trillion dollars to bring about the execution of Saddam. What sane, cogent argument can you make to justify this?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmTracy is stuck on some wedge issue like gay marriage or abortion.
She could give a rat’s ass about the rest. She is just trying to sound like she made a good choice with her votes.
Comment by ForTruth — January 5, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Sadly you are almost certainly correct… one issue voters almost always rally behind the package deal… if the Dems were for Tracy’s one issue - he would probably be against the war and for social welfare… ironically he would use the same book (The Bible) to justify his different positions.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm#97
“Saddam also offered unfettered access at the 11th hour and the United States rejected it.”
Yeah sure he was going to follow thru….right as we were about to walk away!
“You want to defend this conflict (War has never been declared) then what is your stance on the piss poor actions since it started.”
I think that it was executed badly, but I wasn’t against the invasion itself.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm#100
“Why do you keep acting like Saddam was a “Hitler?—
Did he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?
January 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pmTracy: “To wait for an imminent attack is insane.”
There was not going to be any attack. That has been established.
Tracy: “Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?”
Two reasons: strident members of the Japanese military thought we were “soft,” and the Japanese empire feared that we would cut off their supply of oil. As most of us know, many members of the Japanese military and government thought the attack was a big mistake.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:58 pm#101
Saddam and Hilter had their differences, so your comparison question isn’t valid.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pmTracy: “Did he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?”
We annexed parts of the southwest and Texas and took them from Mexico. Does that make us equal to Nazi Germany?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pm#99
“Cultists will never learn. They have a dogma.”
What do think libs do on a daily basis?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmI love how Tracy totally leaves me alone. To me it says she can’t argue with any of my points.
I know Tracy, you think I don’t come up with things that are worth your response.
Like my question about North Korea and what you think about GWB ignoring that problem.
Or my question about your take on WMD’s.
Yup not worth your response.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmTracy, let me remind you that it is you who tries to conflate Saddam with Hitler, not me. It’s a tired old comparison, a talking point you and your idiot pundits have attempted to make without success. It’s amazing to me that someone can be so clueless as to still be pressing it.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pmWhy did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
Comment by Tracy
Because their leader was a maniacal madman, like Shrub, who used the pre-emptive excuse to expand his empire and managed to get his country into a war with the “Sleeping Giant”, who eventually blew most of Japan and the Japanese to high-hell.
Watch TORA! TORA! TORA! because that horrible Ben Affleck “Pearl Harbor” movie is the WORST HISTORICAL ADAPTATION EVER.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmDid he or did he not try and annex Kuwait to Iraq?
Comment by Tracy
So when we annexed Califonia from Mexico President Polk was acting comparable to Hitler? Interesting point of view.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmTracy: “What do think libs do on a daily basis?”
Protect the constitution from ignorant religious fascists like you.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:05 pmNorth Korea isn’t a problem because they don’t have anything we need. Now Iran is a huge problem as there lake of Oil is very important to us!! Screw North Korea, we wouldn’t gain anything of value by attacking them. Iran on the other hand would be worth our time!
January 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pmTracy get in yoru way back machine and re-examine the actions of the US prior to WWII, heck take a look at Europe prior to WWII. Prior to WWII Europe had fought the bloodiest, costliest most senseless war in the history of mankind. WWI in case you didn’t know. Between the wars Europe went through a depression/recession era. Prior to WWII there had not been a world leader quite like Hitler, except for Stalin. Hitler invaded Poland under the guise of national security. He pretty much led the German people to believe that Poland was being aggressive towards Germany and that they had to be attacked to safeguard Germany. After that the war just got uglier and uglier. By the time the US got involved Germany had declared war on us, but they didn’t really need to as we were ready to get involved then anyway. But prior to that…
The US had also gone through a depression. Our economy was in rebuilding mode. During the era between the wars our military was degraded to peacetime status and was not huge and we really did not have the money to support a huge military. Add to that the isolationists in the states (republicans) who did not want extensive foreign entanglements. There of course was another faction of the republican party that wanted us to be involved on the side of Hitler, guys like Lindbergh, Ford, Prescott Bush etc… While Democrats were wanting to assist Great Britain. Roosevelt did all he legally could prior to the war.
You criticize Europe and the US with little or no knowledge about what was going on then. Way back then, the US did not go around the world picking fights, that was considered illegal and the tyrants and despots were the ones who did things like that. We also had no exposure to a guy like Hitler who would kill every political opponent as well as kill every one whom he personally felt was unworthy of life. Leaders like that just did not exist in the world we knew then. They do now, that is for certain. But with Europe remember they had WWI and most nations did not want a war. They assumed that Germany didn’t want war either. Every country in Europe had been bled dry by WWII and they thought they had enough. Right wingers talk about appeasement, especially regarding the Sudetenland. Well, they tend to ignore the treaty of Versailles which created countries out of thin air with borders that were nowhere near their historical boundaries. Poland was shifted West, Germany was shrunk from the south and east. So the peace set the seeds in place and we are still paying for it today. Yugoslavia, Checkslovakia and Iraq were all created at that time, the peace was bungled completely and it led to WWII.
One other thing you absolutely do not understand is that we are supposed to be the good guys. Other people start wars, we are supposed to be the guys who end the wars. We attack aggressors we are not supposed to be the aggressor. This administration has done such an effective job of selling fear of nearly everything that they can convince people to give up on American being what America is supposed to be and sell our national character down the drain. The sad thing is that there are 30% of the people out there who are more than willing to allow it to happen. Talk about appeasing tyrants.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pmI said it before.
Tracy is obviously a wedge issue voter. She only really cares enough about her pet issue. She obviously doesn’t care to know enough about any other issues.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm#104
“This is not what the Amerrican public was told. Have you forgotten Sec Rumsfeld’s famous words?”
He was basing this on intelligence reports that yes were later proved to be false.
“And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn’t have the means to carry out any of his fantasies.”
How exactly was it clear in 2003?
“Not with a team of UN inspectors running around the country and making sure all non-compliant weapons found were destroyed.”
Yeah those biological and chemical illegal weapons sure would be hard to keep out of sight for the HUGE U.N. inspection team. Hell we have been in Iraq for nearly nearly four years jut now have found entire MIG-25 Foxbat fighters buried in the desert of western Iraql not to mention we continually find mass graves and IED bomb making factories in Baghdad.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#122. Just how do you think Kuwait came about. For that matter what do you know about the origin of the middle east countries?
And as for your half ass answer in #121. You’ll accept that the original cause for invasion was good but how it’s been handled has been terrible. So you’ll still stick with the idiots that keep making mistake after mistake after mistake. I just want to be clear on this. No matter what your beliefs are for the initial invasion you’ll stick with this horse all the way to the glue factory.
You’re going to be lonely. And Sticky.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:13 pm#106
Divert? Why would you want to do that?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pmBush41: hey Saddam get out of Kuwait, we were lying about the border dispute thing. You.. Hitler.. you.
Saddam: Dude chill, this is our Manifest Destiny
Bush41: Sorry old chap - my mistake carry on.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pmAs much as I hate kicking someone when they’re down, I just have to point this out:
In comment #122 Tracy sez:
But then, in comment #124, a scant two minutes later, Tracy goes on to say:
(I know…I had to read it a couple of times too…)
Tracy, doesn’t the cognitive dissonance just shake the teeth out of your pointed little head?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:17 pmBluedog49 (or anyone),
Are the correlations between Japan’s failed empire expanding/ pre-emptive attack on Pearl Harbor JUST TOO EERILY similar to our situation in Iraq? I feel that the tensions in the Mid-East as a result of our bungling of foreign affairs for decades, and our subsequent disaster in Iraq COULD EASILY awaken the “Sleeping Giant” of MILLIONS OF potential Jihadists.
And if that happens, we’ll ALWAYS be able to thank George “the Shrub” Bush, lamest-brainest President of them all, and those F*CKING MORONS WHO VOTED FOR HIM (not once, BUT TWICE). THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS TOO! (May you die a slow, painful death.)
January 5th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#117
“You know something I’ve never been able to figure about the The Six Day War is that if Israel was surrounded and about to be overwhelmed by an Arab military machine, how come this invasion-ready juggernaut only took six days to annhilate?”
Because the Arab military commanders were morons.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pm#118 Japan attacked Pearl because they did not want us playing in their ocean. They aspired to be an empire and in order to be an empire they needed raw materials and space. They thought that by striking at the US and driving them out of the western pacific basin that they could fortify it far enough out from their newly acquired resources that it would be too daunting for the US to remove them. Not quite the “they thought the US had WMD†argument we used to start the Iraq War.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:19 pmTracy sez:
Tracy, every time you try to float this turd, I’m going to come along and sink it.
As I’ve already said, there is ample evidence that the administration knew full well that WMDs were not to be found, and that the intelligence reports were deliberately jury-rigged to support the existing policy decision of invasion.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pmAnd just who wrote this part international law and who is in charge of enforcing it?
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
The winners of WWII. The UN Security Council.
I would have figured that after WW2 the European would have leard that doing nothing and making concessions is not a good policy.
The UN charter was written in such a way precisely to prevent the kind of aggression Nazi Germany and Japan launched on other nations, all with phony pretexts. Don’t forget Germany always acted in “self-defence”, or to protect Germans who were under attack somewhere.
Although Clinton had no problem violating “international law†by taking out Milosivic.
NATO asked the US to intervene. It was a NATO-sponsored action. The US didn’t act unilaterally.
Also according to international law we wouldn’t be allowed to oust the Sudanese government for their sponsoring of genocide in Darfur.
Strawman. Crimes against humanity are basis for international action, which include military intervention. This was also written so with Nazi Germany in mind.
No, that was not the case in Iraq in 2003. But it would have been justified in the late 80s.
“It is also contrary to Christian doctrine:…â€
How?
Because you cannot launch an aggression without a good justification. Doing so is sinful (you shouldn’t harm your neighbors). If the aggression will take human lives, the justification better be a very good one. Is that too difficult to understand?
You don’t have to take my word, the wikipedia has a good summary on Just War Theory
Who defines that aggression? To wait for an imminent attack is insane.
Are you asking me to define “is”? If the US is not willing to wait for an imminent attack, the whole world is a potential target, at anytime for anything at all. There is no need for an aggression to be in self-defence. Is that what you are advocating?
Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?
It was a preemptive (”Surprise”) strike to neutralize the US fleet in the Pacific. There was no declaration of war.
Are you giving me a history test?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pmHe was basing this on intelligence reports that yes were later proved to be false.
Comment by Tracy — January 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Ah, did he use cherry-picked, non-credible reports? Who would have thought it would lead to huge, costly mistakes?
“And by 2003, it was clear that whatever intentions Hussein might have had regarding Kuwait -or the rest of the world, for that matter- he simply didn’t have the means to carry out any of his fantasies.â€
How exactly was it clear in 2003?
Are you being obtuse on purpose? Two no-fly zones, over decade of sanctions, an inspection regime… Hussein was disarmed and contained.
Even the inspectors were asking for more time to complete their work to assure Hussein’s compliance with international mandates. They were destroying all weapons they found to be in non-compliance.
Yeah those biological and chemical illegal weapons sure would be hard to keep out of sight for the HUGE U.N. inspection team.
Now you are accusing the inspectors of incompetence? Of course they made surprise visits to sites suspected of WMD manufacturing. Of course they also had satellite and airplane photographs of any movements deemed suspicious.
Do you really think the inspectors walked to these sites?
Hell we have been in Iraq for nearly nearly four years jut now have found entire MIG-25 Foxbat fighters buried in the desert
MIGs are not the WMD the inspectors were looking for, nor are the IEDs. They were also not looking for mass graves.
The type of weapons the inspectors where looking for need specific facilities to be handled and manufactured. They cannot be handled just with rubber gloves in someone’s kitchen. Let alone transported in a Toyota pickup truck. Don’t be ridiculous.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmI hope they remember that when the Iran vote comes up.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:34 pm#125
“We annexed parts of the southwest and Texas and took them from Mexico. Does that make us equal to Nazi Germany? ”
The U.S. offically annexed Texas in 1845 after those living in this Mexican province there rebelled against the Mexican government in 1836 and declared their independence. There was also a battles fought in California and New Mexico over disputed territories.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe U.S. offically annexed Texas in 1845 after those living in this Mexican province there rebelled against the Mexican government in 1836 and declared their independence. There was also a battles fought in California and New Mexico over disputed territories.
Comment by Tracy
Yes but those battles resulted in the annexation of Califonia to the US. Look it up. So do you think President Polk acted like Hitler?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pmTracy one last time. The US fought a war against Mexico and annexed territories that Mexico owned. In short we killed for land. Does that make the US and President Polk like Nazi Germany and Hitler or no?
January 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pm#127
“Like my question about North Korea and what you think about GWB ignoring that problem.”
How did he ignore t