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.
About 10 years ago, I didn't have much internet access to see arguments in the online political community. For those who did, how did conservatives defend GW after no WMDs were found in Iraq?
You mean how did they defend GWB, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and a myriad of others who made public statements regarding the existence of WMD?
Clearly, after 10 years (yikes) you're still marinating in hatred for GWB and conservatives (and I'm not convinced GWB is one, but that's another story), however you conveniently omitted a few people.
You mean how did they defend GWB, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and a myriad of others who made public statements regarding the existence of WMD?
Clearly, after 10 years (yikes) you're still marinating in hatred for GWB and conservatives (and I'm not convinced GWB is one, but that's another story), however you conveniently omitted a few people.
That's revisionist history. In 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the President "to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein", but warned that the administration should exhaust its diplomatic avenues before launching war. Kerry based his 2004 presidential campaign on opposition to the Iraq War.
During an April 20, 2004 interview on Larry King Live, Clinton was asked about her October 2002 vote in favor of the Iraq war resolution. She said, the Bush Administration "really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." In other words, I f'ed up, I trusted the Bush Administration.
In 2002, Pelosi opposed the Iraq Resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq and voted against it. So, I don't know what Delahanty is talking about throwing Pelosi in this.
So, the idea that the Iraq government, had locations inside its own country that it couldnt "control", doesnt concern you at all?
I think you missed the point. The existence of the camps were used as part of the rationale for doing away with Saddam's government, even though they were in an area that the same government couldn't control.
Ironically, part of the reason that areas of Northern Iraq was a free-for-all was the US/UK No-Fly zones.
That's revisionist history. In 2002, Kerry voted ...
In 2002, Pelosi opposed the Iraq Resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq and voted against it. So, I don't know what Delahanty is talking about throwing Pelosi in this.
Most liberals opposed invading Iraq and there were many demonstrations against it.
nice bait & switch. Delahanty referenced the "public statements regarding the existence of WMD" not votes, demonstrations, or future campaigns for office.
I'm not sure that "most liberals" opposed the war. Polling in early 2003 showed support for going to Iraq at around 66%. I recall seeing polls as high as 69%. So only about 30-35% of Americans opposed, and many of them were conservatives. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...oll-iraq_x.htm
I was opposed until 2003, because I figured that Saddam was contained, and there was no reason to upset the chessboard. Most libertarian-types (but not all) were opposed.
One of the sad aspects of the war was that so many people were gung-ho about going in early 2003, and then dropped their support as soon as things started to go sour in Iraq.
Thought you conservos were against government control...
Governments job is to secure locations so the citizens can be safe. Once again you displayed you displayed completely ignorance and think we support anarchy
One of the sad aspects of the war was that so many people were gung-ho about going in early 2003, and then dropped their support as soon as things started to go sour in Iraq.
The gung-ho attitude was very sad indeed. The national psyche was hurting and enraged after 9/11 still, and those who wanted war used that very adeptly.Of course, promises were made that it would be a short, easy and cheap war, necessitated by those ginormous WMD stockpiles.
Remember the pre-war rhetoric? "Greeted as liberators", "5 weeks or perhaps 5 months", "Iraqi oil would pay for the country's reconstruction", the cost of the war would be "something under $50 billion" - do I need to dig out the quotes?
Understandably, the public soured when it became evident that there weren't "large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas" nor "clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." And the cost kept going up. And the war kept dragging on. And the troops were not greeted as liberators.
Never, ever believe a warmonger who promises the boys will be home by Christmas.
The gung-ho attitude was very sad indeed. The national psyche was hurting and enraged after 9/11 still, and those who wanted war used that very adeptly.Of course, promises were made that it would be a short, easy and cheap war, necessitated by those ginormous WMD stockpiles.
Remember the pre-war rhetoric? "Greeted as liberators", "5 weeks or perhaps 5 months", "Iraqi oil would pay for the country's reconstruction", the cost of the war would be "something under $50 billion" - do I need to dig out the quotes?
Understandably, the public soured when it became evident that there weren't "large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas" nor "clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." And the cost kept going up. And the war kept dragging on. And the troops were not greeted as liberators.
Never, ever believe a warmonger who promises the boys will be home by Christmas.
All well stated, but the time to make the case against the war was before we went to war, not after that war started, as things went sour.
Democrats largely waited until after we had gone to Iraq to press their case. And a major arrow in their quiver was the phony "lies about WMD" point. Their reliance on a phony meme is, to me, the telltale indicator that the whole impetus for them was gaining a partisan advantage. As opposed to an honest discourse that could produce actual solutions.
The gung-ho attitude was very sad indeed. The national psyche was hurting and enraged after 9/11 still, and those who wanted war used that very adeptly.Of course, promises were made that it would be a short, easy and cheap war, necessitated by those ginormous WMD stockpiles.
Remember the pre-war rhetoric? "Greeted as liberators", "5 weeks or perhaps 5 months", "Iraqi oil would pay for the country's reconstruction", the cost of the war would be "something under $50 billion" - do I need to dig out the quotes?
Understandably, the public soured when it became evident that there weren't "large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas" nor "clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox." And the cost kept going up. And the war kept dragging on. And the troops were not greeted as liberators.
Never, ever believe a warmonger who promises the boys will be home by Christmas.
Right out f the playbook:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
Former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11,
and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former
Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council –
also says that Bush planned the Iraq
war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed
Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said
a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove
Saddam from power.” And see this
Governments job is to secure locations so the citizens can be safe. Once again you displayed you displayed completely ignorance and think we support anarchy
Down boy!
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.
?
