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.
57% of all Democrats in the house/senate voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Hardly the whole team.
Republican support topped 96%.
Now that we're done deflecting and pretending that both parties were equally enthusiastic about invading Iraq, answer this: Who were the chief architects and sellers of the war?
Well, I caught you in a lie. Typical liberal. The chief sellers of the war were the intelligence agencies throughout the world that thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and Sadaam, who thumbed his nose at the UN. Bad timing for him. We were very nervous after the worst attack in history on our soil. You forgot that part too?
United States Senate On Iraq War Resolution
Party -Ayes -Nays- No Vote; Republican 48 -1 -0; Democratic 29- 21- 0; Independent 0- 1- 0; TOTALS 77 23 0
Addition of two million vets to VA health care system, to now address their needs for life, is covered? How about debt on interest in the long term?
The number from the CRSC is $806 billion. What is your number? Again we can throw out hypotheticals all day. What might have happened if we didn't go to Iraq? Maybe guys like al-Zarqawi would have come here to fight us instead of going to Iraq.
You can get the details of the CRSC's calculation here: click on 'pricetag' and you'll get the PDF.
It does include medical costs, but IIRC does not include interest on the debt. Given that the Iraq war was about 3% of federal spending while it lasted, and interest on the debt is about 7% of spending, that would add to the $806 billion number, but not dramatically so. What is 7% of 3%? That would be the share that the Iraq war contributed towards interest on the debt.
Well, I caught you in a lie. Typical liberal. The chief sellers of the war were the intelligence agencies throughout the world that thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and Sadaam, who thumbed his nose at the UN. Bad timing for him. We were very nervous after the worst attack in history on our soil. You forgot that part too?
United States Senate On Iraq War Resolution
Party -Ayes -Nays- No Vote; Republican 48 -1 -0; Democratic 29- 21- 0; Independent 0- 1- 0; TOTALS 77 23 0
Yes they "forget" a lot, just in order to retroactively bash Bush. People also forget that 70% of Americans supported going to Iraq at the time, according to polling. I still think it was shameful how so many on the left supported going beforehand, then when things went sour in Iraq they turned anti-war for the sake of partisanship. That was below-the-beltway politics.
Did we ever find the WMD that produced Bush's economy wrecking 6 trillion dollar wars?
This is another totally ignorant thread by the clueless here at C-D...
Just exactly who thought they had WMD's (read on concerning all those Democrats who did):
Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright, February 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.
Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, February 1998: He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.
French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: There is a problem the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.
President Bill Clinton, December 1998: Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. Clinton, July 2003: [i]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in 98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't?t know it because we never got to go back there.
General Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't?t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean [D], September 2002: There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. Dean, February 2003: I agree with President Bush he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents, and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy, and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country. So I want to be clear. Saddam Hussein must disarm. This is not a debate; it is a given. Dean, March 2003: [Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons.
Former Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation Robert Einhorn, March 2002: How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously?and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner.
Senator Bob Graham [D-Florida] and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs.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.
Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], December 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.
Senator John Rockefeller [D-W. Virginia], ranking minority member of the Intelligence Committee, October 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
none were found, we however quickly move on to continue the 10 year war (which still rages on fought by blackwater in iraq) the reason being we were fighting now for truth justice and the american way which all iraqi people want but just dont realize it.
codependent nation
“The direct costs for the war were about $800 billion, but the indirect costs, the costs you can’t easily see, that payoff will outlast you and me,” said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at American Progress,
Well, I caught you in a lie. Typical liberal. The chief sellers of the war were the intelligence agencies throughout the world that thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and Sadaam, who thumbed his nose at the UN. Bad timing for him. We were very nervous after the worst attack in history on our soil. You forgot that part too?
United States Senate On Iraq War Resolution
Party -Ayes -Nays- No Vote; Republican 48 -1 -0; Democratic 29- 21- 0; Independent 0- 1- 0; TOTALS 77 23 0
I guess "house/senate" was too vague for you. Allow me to clarify: that doesn't mean just senators.
As for selling the war, Bush and Co took care of that by leaking reports intercepted aluminum tubes, a making dubious Saddam/Al-Qaeda connections. They spread fear and demonized the enemy, to great effect. It was his baby. To this day he claims it is his war. Obviously he can't see what horrendous blunder it was, but still.
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.
Thread fail!
