D1B wrote:
Very much agree with you. My point though is Bush is primarily responsible as the orchestrator of the debacle. If there were a trial, Bush would be found guilty and executed, Kerry would get 30 hours of community service.
HAHA, probably so. I agree, Bush by far carries most of the blame. Glad my boy, Ron Paul, voted against the war from the outset. I sorely regret my vote for Bush, but at that time I still carried the idea the many on here represent, choose the lesser of two evils. I won't do that again. Not that my vote matter then in North Carolina.
God bless Ron Paul and all the other 3rd party candidates. I'm hopeful for Obama, I like what I'm seeing so far, but ultimatly, until we get behind quality third party candidate nothing substantial will change.
I voted for Clinton, then third party (green) until Dubya's second go at it.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
ASUMountaineer wrote:
HAHA, probably so. I agree, Bush by far carries most of the blame. Glad my boy, Ron Paul, voted against the war from the outset. I sorely regret my vote for Bush, but at that time I still carried the idea the many on here represent, choose the lesser of two evils. I won't do that again. Not that my vote matter then in North Carolina.
God bless Ron Paul and all the other 3rd party candidates. I'm hopeful for Obama, I like what I'm seeing so far, but ultimatly, until we get behind quality third party candidate nothing substantial will change.
I voted for Clinton, then third party (green) until Dubya's second go at it.
I agree, we need some real candidates. I too am hopeful that Obama can turn the ship and keep us from heading towards more government intervention (reversing Bush's course). I fear though, if he tries, Congress will turn on him and we could see Obama being a sacrificial lamb like Carter...who refused to give in to his party (that was in control).
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
D1B wrote:
Not really, Bush & Co. concocted the ruse. Ultimately, no Bush = no Iraq war
1) There's no way to know that (one way or another), 2) most Dems refuse to blame Dem politicians who voted for the war. There was very little difference between Kerry and Bush (you may refuse to admit that, but from an outsider's view that's based on their policies). This is not a defense of Bush, it's simply stating that Dems supported the war and may have done the same. Not holding those politicians accountable is just as bad as not blaming Bush. Bush Sr. was smart, he knew going to Baghdad was retarded, even James Baker said so.
You know how I feel about Bush, but to me, those who supported Kerry supported the war. He voted for it, and planned to support it, he had no call for bringing the troops home. He has blood on his hands too.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war. While Congress is responsible for doing its due diligence before that important of a vote there also should be a level of trust between Congress and the administration. While Congress provides oversight it really shouldn't be involved in operational details which is where IMO the wheels really fell off the wagon in the beginning (the NeoCon kool-aid drinking opinion that Iraqi's would welcome American soldiers as liberators, that all Baathists all needed to be removed from positions of authority, etc.).
Going into Iraq was a mistake that Congress approved based upon suspect information. How the conflict was initially managed increased the damage exponentially. While Congress is culpabile, the administration really FUBARed Iraq.
On a side note, can some of the bitterness and hatred of Congressional Dems toward Bush be the result of the feeling that they were duped but they just don't have quite enough evidence to prove it?
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
Wedgebuster wrote:
Gotta remember fellas, the war was voted on during a time of uncertainty and paranoia. Our populace was largely angry and/or frightened by the airline attacks, and Bush was goose stepping all over the place about the sky falling. Incumbents in congress felt the pressure from all sides, especially from their constituents to follow Bush off to war without question, lest they be tossed the following year at mid-term election time.
Saying so and so democrat voted for the war is a nice convenient dodge, but spin it is, nothing more.
It's not spin, it's the truth. What you said is actually a cop-out. If they had any moral fiber and really believed the war to be wrong, they would have sacked up and voted against it, like a few did (all of which are still in congress). The fact is, they were more concerned with re-election than doing what was right (if they really were against the war). You may be ok with them shipping kids off (and killing innocent civilians) to war to keep a job, but I'm not. That is a huge cop-out, and I think you know that. How can you honestly justify voting for a war (you're against) just to get re-elected? That's bullsh!t, plain and simple.
It is sad if you would give them a freebie because they didn't want to get voted out of office.
And one is our president.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
ASUMountaineer wrote:
1) There's no way to know that (one way or another), 2) most Dems refuse to blame Dem politicians who voted for the war. There was very little difference between Kerry and Bush (you may refuse to admit that, but from an outsider's view that's based on their policies). This is not a defense of Bush, it's simply stating that Dems supported the war and may have done the same. Not holding those politicians accountable is just as bad as not blaming Bush. Bush Sr. was smart, he knew going to Baghdad was retarded, even James Baker said so.
You know how I feel about Bush, but to me, those who supported Kerry supported the war. He voted for it, and planned to support it, he had no call for bringing the troops home. He has blood on his hands too.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war. While Congress is responsible for doing its due diligence before that important of a vote there also should be a level of trust between Congress and the administration. While Congress provides oversight it really shouldn't be involved in operational details which is where IMO the wheels really fell off the wagon in the beginning (the NeoCon kool-aid drinking opinion that Iraqi's would welcome American soldiers as liberators, that all Baathists all needed to be removed from positions of authority, etc.).
Going into Iraq was a mistake that Congress approved based upon suspect information. How the conflict was initially managed increased the damage exponentially. While Congress is culpabile, the administration really FUBARed Iraq.
On a side note, can some of the bitterness and hatred of Congressional Dems toward Bush be the result of the feeling that they were duped but they just don't have quite enough evidence to prove it?
Not sure I agree with that. Considering the resentment towards Bush the last two years, it seems it would have been advantageous for Congress to, at least, investigate if Bush lied to Congress. Their refusal to do such a thing considering many constituents requested it, leads me to believe that Congress wasn't lied to, or the politicians were once again incapable of doing their jobs.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's not spin, it's the truth. What you said is actually a cop-out. If they had any moral fiber and really believed the war to be wrong, they would have sacked up and voted against it, like a few did (all of which are still in congress). The fact is, they were more concerned with re-election than doing what was right (if they really were against the war). You may be ok with them shipping kids off (and killing innocent civilians) to war to keep a job, but I'm not. That is a huge cop-out, and I think you know that. How can you honestly justify voting for a war (you're against) just to get re-elected? That's bullsh!t, plain and simple.
It is sad if you would give them a freebie because they didn't want to get voted out of office.
And one is our president.
That's true, though he wasn't in the Senate then I don't think. But, he did speak against it when it was being debated.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
ASUMountaineer wrote:
1) There's no way to know that (one way or another), 2) most Dems refuse to blame Dem politicians who voted for the war. There was very little difference between Kerry and Bush (you may refuse to admit that, but from an outsider's view that's based on their policies). This is not a defense of Bush, it's simply stating that Dems supported the war and may have done the same. Not holding those politicians accountable is just as bad as not blaming Bush. Bush Sr. was smart, he knew going to Baghdad was retarded, even James Baker said so.
You know how I feel about Bush, but to me, those who supported Kerry supported the war. He voted for it, and planned to support it, he had no call for bringing the troops home. He has blood on his hands too.
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war. While Congress is responsible for doing its due diligence before that important of a vote there also should be a level of trust between Congress and the administration. While Congress provides oversight it really shouldn't be involved in operational details which is where IMO the wheels really fell off the wagon in the beginning (the NeoCon kool-aid drinking opinion that Iraqi's would welcome American soldiers as liberators, that all Baathists all needed to be removed from positions of authority, etc.).
Going into Iraq was a mistake that Congress approved based upon suspect information. How the conflict was initially managed increased the damage exponentially. While Congress is culpabile, the administration really FUBARed Iraq.
On a side note, can some of the bitterness and hatred of Congressional Dems toward Bush be the result of the feeling that they were duped but they just don't have quite enough evidence to prove it?
The Dems aren't nearly as vindictive or organized as their counterparts as a whole. While the Republican congressional majority after Clinton's mid term election busied them selves attempting to impeach Clinton for not coming clean on the lewinsky matter, the Dems after the Bush mid-term election attempted to do their jobs as legislators.
Now, I would not claim that either congress did much to improve our lot during their tenure. I am saying the impeachment attempt drove the axe deeper into the wound and accomplished absolutely nothing but wasted time and money, and led to the big swing of majority status back to the dems, who sans Nancy Pelosi and maybe another one or two haven't brought up the subject of impeachment for his vast misrepresentations and manufacturing of fairy tale intelligence indicating the eminent threat of a huge Nuclear weapons attack on us by Saddam Hussein.
UNI88 wrote:
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war. While Congress is responsible for doing its due diligence before that important of a vote there also should be a level of trust between Congress and the administration. While Congress provides oversight it really shouldn't be involved in operational details which is where IMO the wheels really fell off the wagon in the beginning (the NeoCon kool-aid drinking opinion that Iraqi's would welcome American soldiers as liberators, that all Baathists all needed to be removed from positions of authority, etc.).
Going into Iraq was a mistake that Congress approved based upon suspect information. How the conflict was initially managed increased the damage exponentially. While Congress is culpabile, the administration really FUBARed Iraq.
On a side note, can some of the bitterness and hatred of Congressional Dems toward Bush be the result of the feeling that they were duped but they just don't have quite enough evidence to prove it?
The Dems aren't nearly as vindictive or organized as their counterparts as a whole. While the Republican congressional majority after Clinton's mid term election busied them selves attempting to impeach Clinton for not coming clean on the lewinsky matter, the Dems after the Bush mid-term election attempted to do their jobs as legislators.
Now, I would not claim that either congress did much to improve our lot during their tenure. I am saying the impeachment attempt drove the axe deeper into the wound and accomplished absolutely nothing but wasted time and money, and led to the big swing of majority status back to the dems, who sans Nancy Pelosi and maybe another one or two haven't brought up the subject of impeachment for his vast misrepresentations and manufacturing of fairy tale intelligence indicating the eminent threat of a huge Nuclear weapons attack on us by Saddam Hussein.
"Sarah Palin absolutely blew AWAY the audience tonight. If there was any doubt as to whether she was savvy enough, tough enough or smart enough to carry the mantle of Vice President, she put those fears to rest tonight. She took on Barack Obama DIRECTLY on every issue and exposed... She did it with warmth and humor, and came across as the every-person....it's becoming mroe and more clear that she was a genius pick for McCain."
UNI88 wrote:
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war. While Congress is responsible for doing its due diligence before that important of a vote there also should be a level of trust between Congress and the administration. While Congress provides oversight it really shouldn't be involved in operational details which is where IMO the wheels really fell off the wagon in the beginning (the NeoCon kool-aid drinking opinion that Iraqi's would welcome American soldiers as liberators, that all Baathists all needed to be removed from positions of authority, etc.).
Going into Iraq was a mistake that Congress approved based upon suspect information. How the conflict was initially managed increased the damage exponentially. While Congress is culpabile, the administration really FUBARed Iraq.
On a side note, can some of the bitterness and hatred of Congressional Dems toward Bush be the result of the feeling that they were duped but they just don't have quite enough evidence to prove it?
The Dems aren't nearly as vindictive or organized as their counterparts as a whole. While the Republican congressional majority after Clinton's mid term election busied them selves attempting to impeach Clinton for not coming clean on the lewinsky matter, the Dems after the Bush mid-term election attempted to do their jobs as legislators.
Now, I would not claim that either congress did much to improve our lot during their tenure. I am saying the impeachment attempt drove the axe deeper into the wound and accomplished absolutely nothing but wasted time and money, and led to the big swing of majority status back to the dems, who sans Nancy Pelosi and maybe another one or two haven't brought up the subject of impeachment for his vast misrepresentations and manufacturing of fairy tale intelligence indicating the eminent threat of a huge Nuclear weapons attack on us by Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps, I was in high school when Clinton was impeached, and then thought it ridiculous. With that said, if Bush did what you and others accuse him of doing (lying to Congress and the American people to get us into war) then the correct action would have been impeachment, and I wouldn't have considered it vindictive, especially if found guilty. My hunch is 1) they thought it would be disadvantageous to their re-election campaigns, and/ or 2) there wasn't much there. I don't know what the answer is, I would guess it's somewhere in the middle. I don't and didn't trust Bush, but I certainly don't trust Congress either.
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
Wedgebuster wrote:
The Dems aren't nearly as vindictive or organized as their counterparts as a whole. While the Republican congressional majority after Clinton's mid term election busied them selves attempting to impeach Clinton for not coming clean on the lewinsky matter, the Dems after the Bush mid-term election attempted to do their jobs as legislators.
Now, I would not claim that either congress did much to improve our lot during their tenure. I am saying the impeachment attempt drove the axe deeper into the wound and accomplished absolutely nothing but wasted time and money, and led to the big swing of majority status back to the dems, who sans Nancy Pelosi and maybe another one or two haven't brought up the subject of impeachment for his vast misrepresentations and manufacturing of fairy tale intelligence indicating the eminent threat of a huge Nuclear weapons attack on us by Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps, I was in high school when Clinton was impeached, and then thought it ridiculous. With that said, if Bush did what you and others accuse him of doing (lying to Congress and the American people to get us into war) then the correct action would have been impeachment, and I wouldn't have considered it vindictive, especially if found guilty. My hunch is 1) they thought it would be disadvantageous to their re-election campaigns, and/ or 2) there wasn't much there. I don't know what the answer is, I would guess it's somewhere in the middle. I don't and didn't trust Bush, but I certainly don't trust Congress either.
I'm with you on #1 as well as trusting Bush or Congress but I would also add a 3) they didn't think they ould prove it. It wasn't about not being vindictive it was about protecting their own self interests.
Being wrong about a topic is called post partisanism - kalm
MAQA - putting the Q into qrazy qanon qult qonspiracy theories since 2015.
It will probably be difficult for MAQA yahoos to overcome the Qult programming but they should give being rational & reasonable a try.
Thank you for your attention to this matter - UNI88
ASUMountaineer wrote:
Perhaps, I was in high school when Clinton was impeached, and then thought it ridiculous. With that said, if Bush did what you and others accuse him of doing (lying to Congress and the American people to get us into war) then the correct action would have been impeachment, and I wouldn't have considered it vindictive, especially if found guilty. My hunch is 1) they thought it would be disadvantageous to their re-election campaigns, and/ or 2) there wasn't much there. I don't know what the answer is, I would guess it's somewhere in the middle. I don't and didn't trust Bush, but I certainly don't trust Congress either.
I'm with you on #1 as well as trusting Bush or Congress but I would also add a 3) they didn't think they ould prove it. It wasn't about not being vindictive it was about protecting their own self interests.
Exactly, I don't think impeaching him would have been vindictive, I think it was to protect themselves. (Plus, secretly, they liked that government power was being increased)
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
Well Bob Barr and friends learned one thing, impeachments simply alienate everybody, also there is the other seldom thought about consequence of actually getting that task done, who is the VP at the time?
Wedgebuster wrote:Well Bob Barr and friends learned one thing, impeachments simply alienate everybody, also there is the other seldom thought about consequence of actually getting that task done, who is the VP at the time?
True, true. That's kind of like now...think about the VP (or if Señor McCain had won).
Appalachian State Mountaineers:
National Champions: 2005, 2006, and 2007 Southern Conference Champions: 1986, 1987, 1991, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2012
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT! WE'RE GONNA SHOUT IT! NOTHING'S HOTTER THAN A-S-U!
ASUMountaineer wrote:
It's not spin, it's the truth. What you said is actually a cop-out. If they had any moral fiber and really believed the war to be wrong, they would have sacked up and voted against it, like a few did (all of which are still in congress). The fact is, they were more concerned with re-election than doing what was right (if they really were against the war). You may be ok with them shipping kids off (and killing innocent civilians) to war to keep a job, but I'm not. That is a huge cop-out, and I think you know that. How can you honestly justify voting for a war (you're against) just to get re-elected? That's bullsh!t, plain and simple.
It is sad if you would give them a freebie because they didn't want to get voted out of office.
And one is our president.
He wasn't IN congress then.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
UNI88 wrote:
I'm not sure I completely agree with this. While Kerry (and Clinton) did vote in favor of the war, there is a sneaking suspicion that the Bush administration intentionally lied to Congress about Iraq and WMD in order to increase support for the war.
Watching CBS this morning, Hillary was interviewed about Syria's WMD's. Looks like Syria is on the hot list for nation building.
