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.
When she was Senator Clinton, she, Biden and a few others (?Kerry) voted yes in the War Resolution in Congress to invade Iraq under Bush.
Now, at that time I was dumbfounded that she would do that. I opposed the invasion because I knew that Bush and Cheney and Rice and all of that crowd were either lying or stupider than I already thought they were. When Colin Powell argued in front of the U.N. Security Council for permission to invade, they voted no. I sat up at 1 AM to listen to him live on the radio and just KNEW he didn't believe it himself and thought he was being a loyal, good soldier and I was beyond disgust.
So, here we are now with Democrats giving Hillary a pass and supporting her as a candidate for President. I suppose that they figure she has the best chance to beat a Republican and so I do understand that, but it makes me very angry that she is being given a pass on one of the most terrible votes a senator could have ever made. It is positively inexcusable.
There will be readers here who will say they supported the invasion but I am so sorry to say that I have very little sympathy for them for having "not known" and now regretting their support. If anyone had a basic comprehension of the way the Bush administration operated they would not have supported this invasion. And to think that our Hillary, a Democrat, didn't know any better. Wasn't she in a far better position than we average people were, being so up close to the players in the White House and Congress to have a clue? I find it absolutely abominable that she didn't "know" that the reasons to invade were a sham. Didn't she appreciate the expertise of Hans Blix? Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | theguardian.com If you don't even know who he is, you are really not even qualified to enter this discussion. I mean it. Do some reading so you can speak with an understanding of who he was. Why invading Iraq was a terrible mistake - CNN.com
I have no respect for General Colin Powell. A disgrace, what he did.
So, back to Hillary. Here we to the left are supposed to support her. I am not a happy camper. But I don't know who else will be nominated other than her and so I MUST support her, most reluctantly. I certainly would never support a Republican. [MOD CUT/off topic]
Based upon the evidence presented to her, yes she did, along with a lot of congress. Turns out that "evidence" was either an outright lie, cherry-picked to support invasion, or really really bad intelligence. (It's according to who you believe on which one applies).
He pulled one over the most of us and the Brits, too. Hope he burns in hell for this.
I'll let God determine his residence when he leaves this world.
I just don't see why anyone would want someone who was fooled so easily to be President. Heck they want ed John Kerry in 2004, another dupe. Plus, they are fine with having still another as sitting VP.
Well, wutitiz, if you want, we can change the topic and start to debate the validity of the Iraq war. Another long, long thread. Sorry, that was not my chosen topic: I did not write here to debate whether or not we needed to go to war. I wrote to criticize Hillary for voting to go in. There IS a difference in topic, if you can discern this.
The moderator cut off my final sentence as being off topic. I was trying to explain that I am not interested in debating the validity of the war and was not interested in discussing such with right wingers. Because this is a huge topic: whether or not we go in.
So you want to start with a false premise, no if, ands, or buts, and no debate allowed. Then we can debate on that basis. And anyone who disagrees is not allowed to post.
Uhh...you're gonna die one day too. So what? Will your death prove to be a victory for someone else outside of Father Time?
Saddam being dead is meaningless. He would've died one day anyway and it wouldn't have cost us a few trillion to pay for his funeral.
Now if you're into bragging about Pyrrhic Victories, that's one thing. Good for you....4500 dead Americans for one dead despot. I'd love to gamble against you one day. I'd take all your money.
Not bragging etc. It was a tongue in cheek response to your post about who's laughing now - just saying I don't think Saddam is.
No it wasn't. It was a republican affair forced on the entire nation while complacent democrats voted yes, scared to be branded as anti-patriotic by the republican propaganda machine. Here's the actual vote, I don't think it needs explanation as you can easily see which party gave full support to this misguided legislation :
The House
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
29 of 50 D Senators voted YES. 82 of 201 D House members voted YES. That's bipartisan. The YES votes came from a passel of admired D's who still are leaders of the party, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and Reid among them. You can run, but you can't hide.
29 of 50 D Senators voted YES. 82 of 201 D House members voted YES. That's bipartisan. The YES votes came from a passel of admired D's who still are leaders of the party, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and Reid among them. You can run, but you can't hide.
It wasn`t a declaration of war. How many times do you need to have that explained to you?
I'll let God determine his residence when he leaves this world.
I just don't see why anyone would want someone who was fooled so easily to be President. Heck they want ed John Kerry in 2004, another dupe. Plus, they are fine with having still another as sitting VP.
All right, that is precisely my view as well--the entire WMD angle was a pretext. I thought so at the time, and I said so at the time. It didn't take a crystal ball to figure it out, just a bit of sales resistance in the patriotism department, and a rudimentary knowledge of the Middle East.
All one had to do was read the paper. Invading soldiers didn't even bother with these alleged weapons depots. Invading soldiers went right for the oil ministry building. Some people might believe they did so because the US had no interest in Iraq's resources, but I can't see why.
Also, Cheney fed information to the New York times, then pretended when it was printed that this information constituted independent verification of his claims.
There are no good words to describe the Bush Administration's actions, except maybe now "over" can be used.
We would not have invaded and Sadam Hussein would still be alive ( and in power) if he had not invaded Kuwait and had abided by the rules after his defeat in Gulf War I.
Germany and Japan learned that after you lose a war and sign a treaty you are obligated.
Sadam Hussein thumbed his nose at the agreement .....he signed.....and ended up at the bottom of a trap door with the noose around his neck.
Based upon the evidence presented to her, yes she did, along with a lot of congress. Turns out that "evidence" was either an outright lie, cherry-picked to support invasion, or really really bad intelligence. (It's according to who you believe on which one applies).
I was going to disagree, but then again you are right. If one chooses to believe a hallucinating lefty with a bad case of BDS, probably brain-damaged from too much drugs in the 60's, then you're going to conclude 'outright lie.'
Apart from that, clearly there was really bad intel. The CIA only had one source inside Iraq prior to the invasion. Everything else was sat-intel. Early in the war, the Air Force believed that they had killed Saddam in an F-116 attack at a place called 'Dora Farms' outside of Baghdad, in an underground bunker there that sat-intel had uncovered. When ground troops got there, they found no bunker, just an empty field.
Originally Posted by (anti-Bush) Carnegie Endowment for Peace
Prior to 2002, most national and international officials and experts believed that Iraq likely had research]programs and some stores of hidden chemical or biological weapons and maintained program to develop nuclear weapons
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.
