in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This is why I said read before you post, I'll say it again:

When was W-A-R ever mentioned before Bush?

I think we all understand that 9/11 was part of the justification for the war (we can longer stand by and wait to be attacked).

It is clear from these quotes that it didn't matter who was president, we were going to war with Iraq.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This is why I said read before you post, I'll say it again:

When was W-A-R ever mentioned before Bush?

This comes close:

Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


I think we all understand that 9/11 was part of the justification for the war (we can longer stand by and wait to be attacked).

The two have NOTHING to do with each other!!! So no we don't all understand that, the misinformed "understand" that.

Originally posted by AEON

It is clear from these quotes that it didn't matter who was president, we were going to war with Iraq.

No, it's not clear. Your hawk attitude makes that clear to you, but not everyone else.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


This comes close:

Here's a phrase that may fit into your language. 'Close' only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No, it's not clear. Your hawk attitude makes that clear to you, but not everyone else.

Are you saying that these people I have quoted were against the war in 2002/3? That President Clinton, Pelosi, and the others were purposely lying to us in 1998 about Iraq and the threat of WMD?

I may have been a hawk - but I was no more a hawk than these Democrats.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you saying that these people I have quoted were against the war in 2002/3? That President Clinton, Pelosi, and the others were purposely lying to us in 1998 about Iraq and the threat of WMD?

More twisting. Were they against the war? No, but how many of them were willing to jump into one until Bush came along? Yes I think the unwillingness of this administration to work with the UN and the push for a pre-emptive strike changed everything... for the worse.

Originally posted by AEON

I may have been a hawk - but I was no more a hawk than these Democrats.

Really, I never saw pre-emptive strike, once in those quotes. Please show me, we've all been asking you.

And I definately haven't seen any "bomb for democracy" types either amongst the dems...

"HAVE" been a hawk? You still are a hawk.

[maycocksean]

Be sure to quote AEON in later 2008 election threads when he suggests that the dems will be weak on national security. . .

I do actually agree with AEON though. The Democrats bear responsibility for getting us into this mess. They didn't have the courage to buck the prevailing popular opinion (an opinion foisted upon us by the Bush administration and embraced by many in this country) and oppose using military force in Iraq.

But, despite President Clinton's strong language, I can guarantee you that a President Gore would not have gone to war in Iraq.

I know what I thought back in 2003. I thought invading Iraq was madness. I didnt' buy the WMD, I didn't buy the 9/11 connection, and I didn't expect an invasion to go well. I really couldn't believe that we were going down this road. My opinion remains the same today.

[Diemen]

I agree that the Democrats bear the blame for getting swept up in the propaganda and not doing enough to really verify the claims and ensure the threat was as real as it was being portrayed by Bushco. But to suggest that the Democrats are equally to blame for the Iraq war is simply dishonest (at best) in my eyes. Was Iraq viewed as a country to stay very much on top of prior to Bush entering office? Yes. But it would simply be ludicrous to suggest that Democrats would've pushed, lobbied, stumped and propagandized for the same thing if they had the White House at the same time. The evidence that Cheney's offices deliberately ignored evidence to the contrary of the "imminent threat" of Saddam is but one of many examples of the Bush administration deliberately exaggerating the threat in order to get their war.

The Iraq War would not have happened if Bush wasn't in office. Period.

[phillyfan26]

AEON, it's STILL not calling for anything more than a full UN investigation. No one said "Defy the UN, ignore the UN, doubt the UN." These quotes are just saying, "Saddam most likely has the weapons, we need to stop him." You're stretching it.

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26
AEON, it's STILL not calling for anything more than a full UN investigation. No one said "Defy the UN, ignore the UN, doubt the UN." These quotes are just saying, "Saddam most likely has the weapons, we need to stop him." You're stretching it.

Are you referring to the quotes from 1998 or the batch from 2002 and 2003? The quotes from 2002/3 a very supportive of the invasion. I believe several of those quotes were post invasion, stating that the invasion was the "right thing to do."

Here is a part of that quote from Edwards in September 2002, a full NINE months before the invasion:

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

I honestly do not think it mattered if Gore or Bush were president. After 9/11 the people of this country demanded that we were protected. Senators like Hillary Clinton were linking Iraq to WMD and al-Qaeda.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is the leadership of both parties that sent our men and women into battle, leaving Iraq without a government, without protection, and without an infrastructure. To leave the Iraqis like sheep for the slaughter after an invasion is morally reprehensible.

If you thought the invasion itself was morally reprehensible - you must blame everyone from President Clinton for perpetuating the myth of WMD to Bush for acting on that compiled evidence to al-Queda for putting America on the offensive to Congress (that means Republics and AND Democrats) for stirring up the American people in preparation for an invasion and then giving the troops the green light.

[AEON]

Originally posted by maycocksean
Be sure to quote AEON in later 2008 election threads when he suggests that the dems will be weak on national security. . .

No kidding. These quotes make the Neo-Cons look like wimps.

My only fear is that after War Fever subsides, they will once again pull the rug out from the troops and the civilians impacted by the wars they create - and then demand they never supported it in the first place or that they were lied to (forgetting that most of the 'lies' came from their own ranks).

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you referring to the quotes from 1998 or the batch from 2002 and 2003? The quotes from 2002/3 a very supportive of the invasion. I believe several of those quotes were post invasion, stating that the invasion was the "right thing to do."

Here is a part of that quote from Edwards in September 2002, a full NINE months before the invasion:

I honestly do not think it mattered if Gore or Bush were president. After 9/11 the people of this country demanded that we were protected. Senators like Hillary Clinton were linking Iraq to WMD and al-Qaeda.

It is the leadership of both parties that sent our men and women into battle, leaving Iraq without a government, without protection, and without an infrastructure. To leave the Iraqis like sheep for the slaughter after an invasion is morally reprehensible.

If you thought the invasion itself was morally reprehensible - you must blame everyone from President Clinton for perpetuating the myth of WMD to Bush for acting on that compiled evidence to al-Queda for putting America on the offensive to Congress (that means Republics and AND Democrats) for stirring up the American people in preparation for an invasion and then giving the troops the green light.

That Edwards quote calls for an international effort, which is exactly what Bush didn't do.

I'm not blaming them for thinking al-Qaeda could have been involved with Hussein. I AM blaming them for not giving enough time to get facts.

Here's an interesting point: All of the pro-War people are now talking about how this needs so much time. But then why were they in such a rush with the UN? Isn't it important for that to get time, to make sure that we aren't invading a country with no al-Qaeda connections or WMDs?

[anitram]

Originally posted by AEON

after War Fever subsides

The difference between us is that I think that would generally be a good thing.

Many things you've said here scare the shit out of me. And go a long way to explaining why most of the rest of the world gets an ugly, uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach whereas your country is concerned.

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


That Edwards quote calls for an international effort, which is exactly what Bush didn't do.

This can be debated, but that's been covered here way too much already.

Originally posted by phillyfan26
I'm not blaming them for thinking al-Qaeda could have been involved with Hussein. I AM blaming them for not giving enough time to get facts.

Here's an interesting point: All of the pro-War people are now talking about how this needs so much time. But then why were they in such a rush with the UN? Isn't it important for that to get time, to make sure that we aren't invading a country with no al-Qaeda connections or WMDs?

I agree with you. However, it is apparent that after 9-11, leaders of both parties didn't think we could afford to wait.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON
This can be debated, but that's been covered here way too much already.

I agree with you. However, it is apparent that after 9-11, leaders of both parties didn't think we could afford to wait.

Fair enough.

Although, I disagree with your second point. I haven't seen anything to indicate that the Dems thought the UN was an unnecessary waste of time.

[BVS]

Originally posted by anitram


The difference between us is that I think that would generally be a good thing.

Many things you've said here scare the shit out of me. And go a long way to explaining why most of the rest of the world gets an ugly, uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach whereas your country is concerned.

Ditto...

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by AEON
My only fear is that after War Fever subsides

What do you mean 'after War Fever subsides'? It's already subsided. Barely 12% of the population still supports this war. The whole Democratic party hates it. It seems like a new Republican comes out against it every other week now. The majority of Iraqis don't even really want us there anymore. Everybody hates this thing. It's just George Bush, his croonies, and a few people left here and there in this country(the States) like you who insist on holding on to this thing.

[A_Wanderer]

Barely 12% of the population still supports this war

Sorry, I think your thinking of the number that supports congress.



The dems are not advocating an immediate withdrawl and when it is handballed to the next administration they won't be able to do it, which is just chalking up one more aweful piece of politics for which the US only pays a fraction of the price for.

[Infinity]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I don't see why President Al Gore wouldn't have.

He absolutely wouldn't have sent in troops KNOWING that Iraq had no WMD's and KNOWING that Iraq had no connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11. Bush sent in the troops while knowing these facts.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by Infinitum98


He absolutely wouldn't have sent in troops KNOWING that Iraq had no WMD's and KNOWING that Iraq had no connection with al-Qaeda or 9/11. Bush sent in the troops while knowing these facts.

Sorry, I was just confused by all those years where they were supporting air strikes, sanctions and thousands of sorties based on the facts that Iraq had failed to disarm and it had made links with Al Qaeda. Those policies were justified then on the basis of what they intelligence community was saying; I don't see how that line of thinking within a Gore administration would have changed after September 11.