Wow...Cheney explains why invading Iraq is a bad idea.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It has everything to do with this thread. Cheney and the Democrats thought Iraq was enough of a risk to our security to attack. I know you don't want to think of it that way because it's much, much easier to just blame Cheney. But the invasion of Iraq was bi-partisan. Each party thought it was worth it because of the assumed risk they were to us and the rest of the world.

More Democrats voted against it than for it...and it was a vote to authorize force, not a vote to invade...the minority of democrats who voted to authorize force were further split into many democrats who wanted the UN inspections to continue (which would have concluded by finding no WMD and a new vote would have been called for where Democrats would have rejected the war)

If you're going to be picky about "well some democrats did vote against it!" then I guess since Ron Paul and several other GOPers have taken some pretty radical votes, we should count that as the "GOP's fault" too

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This should be available to the public. Why don't you find out and get back to us.

first of all, let's find out where they stand today, not right after 9/11

second, yes, the info should be made available to the public... take a wild stab in the dark at who's blocking you from finding out... just a guess

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It was. And a lot of people thought Iraq might even be more evil and might have even worse weapons to use against us. Of course we found that out to not be true (hindsight 20/20 and all that) and now we are stuck there.

How soon we forget:

Al Gore 15 Years ago on Iraq Terror

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How soon we forget:

Al Gore 15 Years ago on Iraq Terror

I know this. You know this. How many times have all those quotes from Democrats been posted about how evil Iraq was and war was an option? You know. This one:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"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 clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

It's just easier to them to say, now that we know intelligence was fucked, it is 100% republicans (in this case Chaney's) fault we are still stuck in Iraq.

It will never end. It's just the way some people want to see it and a great way to vilify the people they don't like and impress their friends who also don't care about the truth.

[Thorgrim]

OMG I got some quotes from Democrats, I win!

Let me get some Ron Paul quotes!! BRB!!!!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

OMG I got some quotes from Democrats, I win!

Let me get some Ron Paul quotes!! BRB!!!!

Those are/were some of the most influential Democrats in the party... It shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Those are/were some of the most influential Democrats in the party... It shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

Modern grassroots Democrats are overwhelmingly neutral or negative towards almost everyone on that list, except those who were very anti-war when it counted (Like Sen. Byrd and one or two others) or had no idea what the intelligence reports said (Al Gore amongst others)

[phreak]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I know this. You know this. How many times have all those quotes from Democrats been posted about how evil Iraq was and war was an option? You know. This one:

It's just easier to them to say, now that we know intelligence was fucked, it is 100% republicans (in this case Chaney's) fault we are still stuck in Iraq.

It will never end. It's just the way some people want to see it and a great way to vilify the people they don't like and impress their friends who also don't care about the truth.

didn't you get the memo?... democrats are allowed to have double standards.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Modern grassroots Democrats are overwhelmingly neutral or negative towards almost everyone on that list, except those who were very anti-war when it counted (Like Sen. Byrd and one or two others) or had no idea what the intelligence reports said (Al Gore amongst others)

The only person they like is Hillary on that list, and that's only within the blogs. That entire list are leading Democrats who the media and most Democrats adore.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The only person they like is Hillary on that list, and that's only within the blogs. That entire list are leading Democrats who the media and most Democrats adore.

Sorry, no

If by "adore" you mean "think positively as much as an indepedents" then yes...but then you're basically saying the vast majority of the country is Democratic

For example, approval ratings for Bill Clinton amongst Democrats and Independents are about the same

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Sorry, no

If by "adore" you mean "think positively as much as an indepedents" then yes...but then you're basically saying the vast majority of the country is Democratic

For example, approval ratings for Bill Clinton amongst Democrats and Independents are about the same

Here is my post:

The only person they like is Hillary on that list, and that's only within the blogs. That entire list are leading Democrats who the media and most Democrats adore.

We're talking about Democrats here, not independents. Changing the debate doesn't make previous statements true.

Let's look at that list, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Hillary, Clinton, Pelosi, Albright, etc... You'd be hard pressed to find the grassroots not liking these most of these people. And you'd be hard pressed to find mainstream Democrats and the media not liking them either.

[DosEquis]

The actions are significantly different than words. Bill Clinton and the rest may have said those things, but they did not invade with 150,000 soldiers and create a mess. What we are seeing happen today is the very reason GHWB did not remove Saddam, and what would happen was described very well by Cheney in 1994. He changed his tune in 1998 when PNAC wrote a letter to clinton. He also changed it to "they will greet us a liberators" in 2002.

Talking about it and sending in military forces unilaterally are 100% different.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Here is my post:


We're talking about Democrats here, not independents. Changing the debate doesn't make previous statements true.

If someone get's a high approval for...say...promoting universal healthcare...does this mean they're the Democrats go-to person on foreign policy?

Jon Tester is a popular netroots Democratic Senator, but I don't think anyone is going to be going to him regarding Uzbekistan's ethnic divisions and their role in US bases to support action against Afghanistan

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The actions are significantly different than words. Bill Clinton and the rest may have said those things, but they did not invade with 150,000 soldiers and create a mess. What we are seeing happen today is the very reason GHWB did not remove Saddam, and what would happen was described very well by Cheney in 1994. He changed his tune in 1998 when PNAC wrote a letter to clinton. He also changed it to "they will greet us a liberators" in 2002.

Talking about it and sending in military forces unilaterally are 100% different.

Also, voting to give the ability to use force is 100% different than telling someone to use force...what Democrats on that list said the President should invade in March of 2003?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Also, voting to give the ability to use force is 100% different than telling someone to use force...what Democrats on that list said the President should invade in March of 2003?

While technically you are correct, I think they also voted for the use of force knowing that force was probably going to be used. Very few were really in the right mindset after 9/11 and we were exploited. Anyone against it was an unpatriotic pussy. Some body had to pay for 9/11 and there are just not enough targets to blow up in afghanistan. They manipulated the country in a way Hermann Göring described at the nuremberg trials in 1945.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It has everything to do with this thread. Cheney and the Democrats thought Iraq was enough of a risk to our security to attack. I know you don't want to think of it that way because it's much, much easier to just blame Cheney. But the invasion of Iraq was bi-partisan. Each party thought it was worth it because of the assumed risk they were to us and the rest of the world.

I guess you have no response to the rest of my post and you agree with me.


This thread is about the Cheney video. If you want to make a thread about how the Democrats are to blame for the war, go make one. Don't derail this one.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The actions are significantly different than words. Bill Clinton and the rest may have said those things, but they did not invade with 150,000 soldiers and create a mess. What we are seeing happen today is the very reason GHWB did not remove Saddam, and what would happen was described very well by Cheney in 1994. He changed his tune in 1998 when PNAC wrote a letter to clinton. He also changed it to "they will greet us a liberators" in 2002.

Talking about it and sending in military forces unilaterally are 100% different.

But it makes these people feel warm and fuzzy to blame Democrats.

[P/N]

Originally Posted by motivez

What facts are those?

9/11 happened - FACT

Terrorists want to kill us - FACT

Terrorism cannot be treated as a "criminal act", such as the previous administration did in 1993 after the first WTC bombing, and the Khobat Towers bombing in 1996 and the USS Cole bombing in 2000 - FACT

Saddam was a terrorist - FACT

Iraq was hostile to not only the US, but the world. The best intelligence in the world believed that Saddam posessed WMD's - FACT

The administration (and as