Yes We Can ! ;)

[artist4perry]

I love this..........another who did worse, the chicken or the egg? (Reps vs Dems) Sorry guys they have all made mistakes. I feel Obama thinks he is doing what is best. I just don't agree with his methods. And Deano before you have a gasket sweetie, Bush was a duffus. You get no arguement from me. There is no way either side is going to convince the other. We just have a country with polar thoughts.

Where I disagree with a great deal of both sides views, I can say I think most are wanting to do what they feel is best. Problem is what is best needs to be weighed out carefully. Not rushed to, or done with favors to one and not to all. I cannot agree with that. Most of the Congress, left, right, middle..............did not read that mostrosity. I am afraid to find out what deals were made under the table to get it passed. We need tort reform, we need crack down on insurance fraud, we need doctors and patients to make decisions, not burocrats.

I will hope for the best, and brace for the worst. I finally have good health care, and I worked hard to go to return to college and educate myself because I could not do heavy labor anymore. I had to change or shorten my life. So I went back to school. I worked hard to get the insurance I now have. I don't want it taken away from me because the premiums go sky high. Lets hope they thought that one out.

[steveo777]

Enlighten me oh wise one.

Dipshit, Bush had a 74% rating(I'll take your word for it), going into war because we had just been attacked. ANY president would have high ratings had we just been attacked. The country wraps itself up in the flag and gets really patriotic.

Besides, I don't give a rats ass what his ratings were then, what were they when he left office? 28%?

If you want stupid yet correct comparisons, Obama has a higher approval rating than Reagan did at this time in Ronnie's first term. Does that mean Obie is a better president?"

It doesn't matter what the approval rating is. It only takes one nut to ruin the whole day. We have not lost a President in office since Kennedy, by God's grace. We must have superb Presidential security these days. Big controversial changes like this scare the hell out of me and that is one of the reasons. People do extreme shit when they are passionate in what they believe in.

[Behshad]

Gallup approval rating as of March 30, 2003: 71%

people supported an invasion , if there was enough proof that Saddam had WMD.
Misleading the people and ignoring them later , is how I'd describe it

[donnaplease]

Gallup approval rating as of March 30, 2003: 71%

people supported an invasion , if there was enough proof that Saddam had WMD.
Misleading the people and ignoring them later , is how I'd describe it

Hmmm... any parallels there to the healthcare bill? Well, kinda. Except BO is misleading and ignoring at the same time!

If I remember correctly, the decision for invasion was a bipartisan act. IF those that were for it before they were against it were doing their jobs, perhaps they should have known that it was not the right thing to do, and fought it from the beginning. That one can be argued til the cows come home. For all the name-calling and such that is going on out there about the Republican opposition to the health care bill, at least they are standing up and saying "no" now, not waiting til this Titanic sinks to jump onto a life boat and start pointing fingers.

I honestly don't know what will happen. I hope our country comes out of this disaster in one piece. I'm just not very optimistic about it though.

[conversationpc]

If I remember correctly, the decision for invasion was a bipartisan act. IF those that were for it before they were against it were doing their jobs, perhaps they should have known that it was not the right thing to do, and fought it from the beginning.

[The_Noble_Cause]

If I remember correctly, the decision for invasion was a bipartisan act. IF those that were for it before they were against it were doing their jobs, perhaps they should have known that it was not the right thing to do, and fought it from the beginning.

Congress gave their President the benefit of the doubt in a time of heightened patriotism, national security, and looming elections - what's so wrong with that?
While Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force, the decision to go to war was his and his alone.
I don't care what party you're in, when the weapons inspectors on the ground are telling you they're finding nothing, you DO NOT sacrifice American lives.

[donnaplease]

If I remember correctly, the decision for invasion was a bipartisan act. IF those that were for it before they were against it were doing their jobs, perhaps they should have known that it was not the right thing to do, and fought it from the beginning.

Congress gave their President the benefit of the doubt in a time of heightened patriotism, national security, and looming elections - what's so wrong with that?
While Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force, the decision to go to war was his and his alone.
I don't care what party you're in, when the weapons inspectors on the ground are telling you they're finding nothing, you DO NOT sacrifice American lives.

There was nothing wrong with it, until they flipped on it and attacked Bush (and ONLY Bush) for it like rabid dogs. They should have just taken responsibility for their decisions, instead of trying to convince us that they were duped. The only thing worse than sacrificing American lives, is politicizing those sacrifices for the sake of looming elections.

[conversationpc]

If I remember correctly, the decision for invasion was a bipartisan act. IF those that were for it before they were against it were doing their jobs, perhaps they should have known that it was not the right thing to do, and fought it from the beginning.

Congress gave their President the benefit of the doubt in a time of heightened patriotism, national security, and looming elections - what's so wrong with that?
While Congress gave Bush the authorization to use force, the decision to go to war was his and his alone.
I don't care what party you're in, when the weapons inspectors on the ground are telling you they're finding nothing, you DO NOT sacrifice American lives.

Considering what the top Democrats were saying at the time, we likely would still have gone to war even if Bush weren't the President at the time.

[conversationpc]

The only thing worse than sacrificing American lives, is politicizing those sacrifices for the sake of looming elections.

Honestly, Bush did the same thing in 2004.

[The_Noble_Cause]

There was nothing wrong with it, until they flipped on it and attacked Bush (and ONLY Bush) for it like rabid dogs. They should have just taken responsibility for their decisions, instead of trying to convince us that they were duped. The only thing worse than sacrificing American lives, is politicizing those sacrifices for the sake of looming elections.

What decisions?
Giving the President the authorization to use force to protect us?
There's nothing wrong with that.
The buck stops with the President, and he ordered shock and awe after the weapons inspectors had painted him a much different picture.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Considering what the top Democrats were saying at the time, we likely would still have gone to war even if Bush weren't the President at the time.

No way.
Take away the Neocon cabal of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz and this war would never have happened.
More sanctions and air strikes like under Clinton? Probably.

[Lula]

the invasion was wrong, plain and simple. only a few spoke out against it. i can understand the fear of going against the cheney machine. that admin ruled with the foundation of scaring the people with big bad terrorists taking away our way of life. they fed off the fear with testosterone. don't fuck with us, we'll take you out. an embarrassment. i prefer the quiet approach. i hated the bush style of sabre rattling.

screw this, i'm going to disneyland!!!

[Rockindeano]

Finder, the War in Iraq was and is a mess. I am not going to be one who says that it was an easy decision and those that said yes are/were all wrong. The only point I would like to make is that the Iraqi conflict was written and prepped before W took office. I don't think there are many on either side who would reject that claim. What makes it look real bad is that is was so close to 9/11 and VP Cheney even linked Saddam to to 9/11while the President did not. It was just screwy, and the preparation was even worse. That claim is validated by the fact that Colonel Powell jumped ship after having to go on the floor of the UN and talk up Res. 1441, and the fact that after the mid terms, Rumsfeld bolted. Wolfowitz bolted as well. The exit strategy was never really thought out.

Also, if Obama brings the troops home, or the majority of troops come home, that will play well politically. Obama is doing rather well in Afghanistan to be honest, by sending in a surge last month.

[Behshad]

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

sorry to burst your bubble , but that pic is NOT from Sep 29 1998. It's from November 4th 1998.




and that proves my point that good presidents DO fuck up once in a while.

[The_Noble_Cause]

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

Clinton never invaded Iraq, despite the urging of the same megalomaniacs that would later call the shots in the Dubya White House.
There were also plans drawn up to invade Cuba under JFK.
Big difference between a map in a drawer, and actually going to war.

[The_Noble_Cause]

"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." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (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." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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



I wonder what Kerry was angling for....oh yeah...a date with John Edwards.

None of those statements were made after the weapons inspectors were on the ground and came up empty.
President Bush said war would be used only after he exhausted all options.
If inspectors have debunked your entire case for war and you throw American lives into the maws of hell anyway, what does that say about the person giving the order?

[The_Noble_Cause]

None of those statements were made after the weapons inspectors were on the ground and came up empty.

Excuse me...

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on eve of military strikes against Iraq
March 17, 2003

This statement was not included your earlier post.
My mouse does have a scroll wheel, FF.
Nice try...
I stand by what I said - none of the statements you posted were made after the weapons inspectors were on the ground.
The decision to go to war ultimately resides with the commander in chief (tho it should be Congress’s), not a Senator from Massachusetts with Presidential aspirations.

If you’d like to argue honestly and take Kerry’s comment on its own terms, we can certainly do that.
For starters, you’ve deceptively edited off the first part of the sentence: “Even having botched the diplomacy…”
If the facts are on your side, why do you feel the need to do this?
Like most Congressmen, Kerry decided to fall in line and support the President.
It’s what spineless Democrats always do - and what most Americans do too.
That doesn’t change the fact that the inspectors found bupkiss and Bush went to war anyway.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Who played on our fears Al?

"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table."

The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002

A newspaper op-ed does not have the life-and-death consequences of a war.
You have really lost it, FF.

[Behshad]

The same Hans Blix that resigned 2 1/2 months after the invasion.


Fact finder.
Save us the c&p. No matter who was for or against the invasion , BUSH wouldve made it happen. To him it wasn't about the saftey of the world. To him this was an attack against the bad guy who messed with daddy.

The Iraq invasion was a huge mistake. Saddam was not a threat to US. He was barely a threat to his neighbours.
He killed his own people , yes. But I don't think Iraqis have a prefrence of getting killed by Saddam or Bush.

[Rockindeano]

If you’d like to argue honestly and take Kerry’s comment on its own terms, we can certainly do that.
For starters, you’ve deceptively edited off the first part of the sentence: “Even having botched the diplomacy…”
If the facts are on your side, why do you feel the need to do this?
Like most Congressmen, Kerry decided to fall in line and support the President.
It’s what spineless Democrats always do - and what most Americans do too.
That doesn’t change the fact that the inspectors found bupkiss and Bush went to war anyway.

Well there was one Congressman who went against the invasion. Seems he is rather good at this type of thing or a very lucky guesser. He is now the leader of the free world.

[The_Noble_Cause]

The same Hans Blix that resigned 2 1/2 months after the invasion.

Of course.
For every sentence FF pulls out of context, there are countless interviews with Blix where he lays out in detail how he was undermined by Bush.
I don't even know why this is a partisan football...should Obama try to pull the same stunt, members of his own party will be calling for his impeachment.

[Behshad]

Story Time

1) September 11, 2001 – this hurt all of America, not just Republicans. It is what jump-started the “You are with us or against us” rhetoric and the “You are UN-AMERICAN!” and “UNPATRIOTIC” craze if you dissent! Suddenly you were not a “good Christian” if you didn’t jump through the hoops of the evangelical wing of Christianity. One of those hoops, of course was to join in the battle against evil,… which includes hunting terrorists! (did we hunt them over the threat they posted to our nation’s security, or the threat they posed to Christianity — through the Islamic faith– maybe both)

Great Republican Strategy until it blows up in their face 5 years later

2) Al Qaeda claims responsibility for the September 11 attacks, and we now have a face to put on our enemies who were previously dubbed “shadow warriors” and man “with no face” (Bush).

3) Instead of hunting Osama Bin Laden, we decide to oust Saddam Hussein who was being quite a pest with his constant berating of the United States for its desire to rule the world, or whatever he complained about. In order to oust Saddam Hussein we needed an anti-terrorist policy that would allow us to do so. American Policy: Destroy all terrorists who might threaten our security! That blanket covered us in just about any foreign policy mission we wanted to take part in. All things considered, it wasn’t a bad idea except its execution was less than perfect!

4) Patriot Act One of the reasons that people like me have come out so strongly against President Bush, is the Patriot Act. It was enacted in congress as an anti-terrorist measure that was supposed to help “protect the American people” and defend us from those who seek to terrorize us and attack our freedom. Instead, what we’ve found is that the Patriot act serves as a tool for our own government to commit acts of terror. Our own government is destroying our liberty rights, laughs in the face of privacy rights and you can forget about that constitution that conservatives were once so famous for ‘defending’. I guess you only defend the damn thing when it suits your policy needs, such is politics… Democrats do the same thing.

5) Racial profiling becomes the standard in air ports and private government investigations, no doubt. Illegal wiretapping becomes acceptable in the name of “fighting terror.” In the 1960s we had the same problem, because of idiots like McCarthy who were scaring Americans and calling ANYONE who didn’t agree with certain policies a Communist! Illegal wiretapping was something the FBI did to help counter any threats to American stability. Martin Luther King, Jr. was illegally wiretapped because he was deemed a threat. (this isn’t a theory)

6) Alberto Gonzales is alleged to obstruct justice on an illegal act [U.S. Attorney firing scandal]! There are witnesses out there that have testified before congress (Monica Goodling) that suggest the problem is even bigger than originally anticipated. Firing seven attorneys of the United States to serve a political agenda is a no-no. But hiring practices were also discriminatory! There were some very high profile cases that indicted a few Republicans for actions that go back as far as the Clinton years. The cases, I am guessing are no longer actively being pursued. Some of you might remember that even Jon Stewart gave Alberto Gonzales, the president and vice president Dick Cheney a chance to clear their good name!

7) Katrina Bush put friends that weren’t really qualified into positions of power. FEMA was a joke, the response was poor.. and in the aftermath of Katrina there were conservatives who -blamed- the people for not leaving when there were forecasts of the impending disaster. If you are poor and have no where to go, and have no reason to believe your entire city would be ruined by a devastating storm, why would you take a three day vacation? Others said that God was punishing America for our misdeeds… but the bottom line was, a botched job both pre and post-Katrina. The worst part of it all, is denying aid to Katrina victims in order to ‘keep our economy’ bustling. So the 854 million offered by ALLIES in oil and cash were not distributed. Only $40 million dollars had been dispersed as of the writing of this article on the Katrina scandal.

Karl Rove’s connection with the White House, Karl Rove’s “accidental deleting” of email evidence that might be used against him and the White House. What a silly mistake to think they were already archived. Except, not all of the e-mails were destroyed, ruh roh….

Dick Cheney shielded from executive, legislative and judicial oversight because he belongs to none of them and all of them at the same time!

[Behshad]

Fact Finder.

Your strategy is old. You throw all the shit you can , at the wall , hoping some of it will stick. YOU are the one who have to twist your own quotes , when they're questioned. And it's also funny to see how you edit facts to your benefit , while play the " um I didn't know it was edited but I stand corrected". Your presentation of facts and the truth are identical to Daddy Bush's tactics

[Behshad]

:roll:

You need rest..

talking to yourself again , I see

[The_Noble_Cause]

You guys keep on twisting, it's really funny to watch. My point TNC was that there are plenty of "after the weapons inspectors came up empty" pro war quotes from Dems it isn't even arguable...yet argue you do. Twist, spin and argue.

As I said, in the wake of 9-11, most Dems (and US citizens) rallied around the President.
That does nothing to change the inspectors' findings, or the fact that the NIE was deliberately altered to misrepresent the WMD threat.
Both of which you choose to ignore; opting instead to save your powder for Democrat politicians who acted exactly like politicians.
Big surprise there.

BTW, whatever quotes I posted were the quotes I found. If they've been edited or misrepresented I'm ready to stand corrected. The complete body of Dem quotes however is still out there, and it doesn't reflect your Michael Moore revision of history.

Who cares about the Dems?
The President makes the final call to go to war, and the inspectors findings did not bear out his preconceptions.
I don't know about you, but when the facts change, I change my mind.
Unless, of course, you don't care about the facts in the first place.

[Behshad]

TNC

Don't you know by now that if you change your mind after the real facts are presented , you'll be labeled as " flip-flop"er.

[donnaplease]

Reading the interview with Dick Gephart, I have to ask what his view on the invasion is now? It sounds like he did what he should've done - his homework - and came up with a decision he could live with. Does he still hold that view?