Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean you don't remember Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq in the late 90s? Or Hillary, Biden, Kerry and a bunch of other democrats doing the same?
yep..infact it was LAW
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, 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
Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, 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
if you keep hitting home runs like this, you are going to have more than ruth, aaron, and bonds combined.
Seeing the Lewinsky thread and thinking of how the house impeached Clinton over lying about it. I am wondering why noone tried to impeach or otherwise indict Bush/Cheney for manufacturing the justification for a war in Iraq?
I think one offense pales in comparison to the other. Why the difference?
Because one President was a Democrat, and the other was a Republican. Simple!
Seeing the Lewinsky thread and thinking of how the house impeached Clinton over lying about it. I am wondering why noone tried to impeach or otherwise indict Bush/Cheney for manufacturing the justification for a war in Iraq?
I think one offense pales in comparison to the other. Why the difference?
Because Clinton lied in a court of law under oath to tell the truth. While it may be a good idea to have all POTUS take such an oath for their entire presidency, to date there is no such requirement.
Because one President was a Democrat, and the other was a Republican. Simple!
They use speeches made by career politicians to justify the lies spread about non existent WMD's and to cover up the fact that the neocons strongarmed Congress, and the nation, into a disastrous war that killed over 4,000 Americans, an untold number of Iraqi's, all so these evil people could gain access to Iraqi crude.
What I really like hearing is them hiding behind the United Nations, an organization they love disparaging until it lined up with their "legal" plans to invade Iraq, then they showcase it as though everything was "legal" and the world supported them.
Some of the largest anti war rallies ever took place in 2003, all over the world. Except for the U.S., of course. Elsewhere millions took to the streets.
Because one President was a Democrat, and the other was a Republican. Simple!
Wrong. One offense involved lying in a court of law after taking an oath not to do so. In case you accept what the OP said, let me tell you that Lewinsky was not involved in that court case since the deed being debated took place when she was in high school somewhere. The lady he lied about and ended up paying $850,000 to get off his back was named Paula Jones.
They use speeches made by career politicians to justify the lies spread about non existent WMD's and to cover up the fact that the neocons strongarmed Congress, and the nation, into a disastrous war that killed over 4,000 Americans, an untold number of Iraqi's, all so these evil people could gain access to Iraqi crude.
What I really like hearing is them hiding behind the United Nations, an organization they love disparaging until it lined up with their "legal" plans to invade Iraq, then they showcase it as though everything was "legal" and the world supported them.
Some of the largest anti war rallies ever took place in 2003, all over the world. Except for the U.S., of course. Elsewhere millions took to the streets.
you might want to actually READ this link i posted earlier in this thread;
so apparently you approve of going into court, and lying under oath do you?
Quote:
And he didn't ignore the attacks. He tried and tried and tried to do something about them and the Republicans blocked and blocked and blocked him
and what did he do other than blow up a pill factory in the sudan, and launch a few missiles into the desert of afghanistan at some deserted training camps.
The only Democrats agitating for war in 2002 that I can remember are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, and there are outcasts in any party (in the GOP, ONE Senator voted against attacking Iraq. ONE)
Only one had any guts, foresight or courage. Tragic
Your attempt to spread the blame around based on past speeches is sad.
This was the GOP's war, and since I never voted for any of those warmongers I feel I can state my opinion free from guilt. I have no blood on MY hands. And yes, there are Democrats who are as guilty as Republicans. I never disputed that.
what is sad is your refusal to accept any facts that you decide make dems look good and repubs look bad.
All those "speeches" as you say ARE THE REASON THEY VOTED FOR THE INVASION. if you can't accept that is your problem.
Question for you. Did you vote for Kerry? Biden?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
