"Bush's War".. This is a DEMOCRATS WAR.. get a clue.

First, the war option was put before a vote all the way though (most of the left does not seem to understand HOW American Govt. actually works, so they refer to our war in Iraq as "Bush's War", this thread is primarily for those who don't know), majority's on BOTH SIDES voted to go to war, as much as some of our less educated folks seem to somehow think that Bush is the Grand Emperor, and that he can just do as he pleases, nothing could be further from the truth..

Fact: The President can make the choices that he feels to be best for the nation, but, CONGRESS can at any time stop and REVERSE any decision the President makes.. PERIOD.

Fact:A MAJORITY of Democrats in the Senate and Congress VOTED TO GO TO WAR.. Bush could not have gone to war without their agreeing to do so.

Fact: The Democrats during the last elections ran on a "We will get us out of this war" ticket.. we were told elect us, and we will remove our troops from Iraq.. everyone over the age of 10 probably remembers that (except the left).

Fact: the Democrats have the majority, and could over ride Bush any time they wanted, they promised to get us out of this war, did they? no, they said, "we dont agree with this war", "we dont need to be in Iraq its just costing American lives", and my personal favorite, "This war is IMMORAL in every"..

They are clearly in control, they have the ability to remove American troops any time they feel it would be in Americas best interest.. have they? lol, not only have they not even moved to vote for removal of American Troops, they voted to FUND THE DAMN WAR.. they are against the war? yet they fund it so that it can continue? lol, is anyone really buying this crap that they are not for this war? ... thats akin to saying, "son I dont want you to go out tonight, here is lots of money, almost enough to break our bank, have a good time and be home by tomorrow morning!".

We often see those on the left referring to Iraq as "Bush's War", yet, who voted to continue fighting it by funding it? the DEMOCRATS.. that makes it a DEMOCRAT WAR.. hell if they are funding it, and not fighting against American Troops being there, by not so much as a single vote in the house, and they are the ultimate voice, and get the final say on weather or not Americans fight in Iraq.. there is no way to lie about it, it's their damn war.. even if Bush wanted to leave, HE CANT.. unless Congress agrees, that by definition makes this a DEMOCRATS WAR... no rebelling against it, no votes, and they fund it.

Bush was not a spearhead against Saddam, the baton was passed to him from Clinton, there is no denying that.. Gore, and most of Washington was hot after this war, the only people who dont seem to know that obviously have selective memory.. here are just 2 examples for proof..

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Bush inherited this war, while it didnt start under Clinton he damn sure added the wood, and started the embers... 9/11, Katrina, the war on 2 fronts... troops still in Yugo.. these hit our country damn hard, and has cost America how much? anyone?.. thats what I thought.. considering what the hell we have been though in the last 10 years, we are doing pretty damn good, most nations would never be able to survive this.. we have.. granted, we are sucking wind.. but we are still standing.

Make no mistake, I dont like Bush, and I think the last President on his level was Carter.. but, in all fairness this is not his war, it never was, Congress is the one who says go or say, and when the Democrats say STAY and here is the money to do it.. it is then their war.. like it or not.

Was anyone else against this Iraq mess before it started??? I believed Hans Blix and the work he and inspectors were doing.

Bull****. If it was we would have won it already. Every war started under a Democratic administration was won. Republicans talk tough but they run and hide behind their momma's skirts at the first sign of trouble.

Takes a Democrat to win a war.

[QUOTE=frankenstein;122526691]Was anyone else against this Iraq mess before it started??? I believed Hans Blix and the work he and inspectors were doing.[/QUOTE]

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- [B]Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998[/B]

I'm not surprised that this is what the Fox News spin machine is working on now. I give it a week before they blame it ALL, somehow, on Bill Clinton's penis.

[QUOTE=Jean-Paul4447;122531111]I'm not surprised that this is what the Fox News spin machine is working on now. I give it a week before they blame it ALL, somehow, on Bill Clinton's penis.[/QUOTE]

Feel free to explain HOW this is wrong? no spin, how is this NOT FACT.

[QUOTE=Nagalfar;122533021]Feel free to explain HOW this is wrong? no spin, how is this NOT FACT.[/QUOTE]

Think about the substance of what you are saying.

The Democrats didn't stop Bush from f-ing up, so it is all their fault that he f-ed up?

I don't think so.

This post is mind bogglingly ridiculous.

Bipartisan support is moot. This administration got the wheels turning, they solicited for the cash and contracts, it is their war.

Are we supposed to believe Gore would have invaded Iraq, too?

[QUOTE=catmando;122529651]Bull****. If it was we would have won it already. Every war started under a Democratic administration was won. Republicans talk tough but they run and hide behind their momma's skirts at the first sign of trouble.

Takes a Democrat to win a war.[/QUOTE]
Not a history buff I see.
The Korean War started under Harry Truman, a Democrat. We're still in South Korea in case anyone forgot. The Vietnam War started with LBJ. Hmm, how did that wonderful war turn out?? And for phuck's sake, you think whoever is president is going to determine whether a war is won?? Presidents aren't supreme leaders or dictators. Party affiliation doesn't determine winning a war.

It's impossible to win a war on terrorism with guns and bombs. War on a tactic, a concept can only be won by taking away the incentive for the tactic.

[QUOTE=Jean-Paul4447;122533521]Think about the substance of what you are saying.

The Democrats didn't stop Bush from f-ing up, so it is all their fault that he f-ed up?

I don't think so.[/QUOTE]

Bush is an asshat for starting this unnecessary war. The Democrats are just as guilty for promoting the same fear he did and continuing to vote to fund the war. They got elected in Nov 2006 to end the war. Last I checked, we're still over there. Both parties should be ashamed!!!!

[QUOTE=catmando;122529651]Bull****. If it was we would have won it already. [b]Every war started under a Democratic administration was won.[/b] Republicans talk tough but they run and hide behind their momma's skirts at the first sign of trouble.

Takes a Democrat to win a war.[/QUOTE]

Vietnam was started under a Democrat. You fail as usual.

[QUOTE=catmando;122529651]Bull****. If it was we would have won it already. Every war started under a Democratic administration was won. Republicans talk tough but they run and hide behind their momma's skirts at the first sign of trouble.

Takes a Democrat to win a war.[/QUOTE]

Vietnam! You are a complete and utter idiot! Started and lost by democrats.

[QUOTE=frankenstein;122539191]Bush is an asshat for starting this unnecessary war. The Democrats are just as guilty for promoting the same fear he did and continuing to vote to fund the war. They got elected in Nov 2006 to end the war. Last I checked, we're still over there. Both parties should be ashamed!!!![/QUOTE]

Both parties should be ashamed, yes, but there isn't moral equivalency here, and it certainly isn't primarily the Democrats fault.

Both are blameworthy, but Bush is worse.

[QUOTE=catmando;122529651] Every war started under a Democratic administration was won. [/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/Lolwutpear.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=catmando;122529651]
Takes a Democrat to win a war.[/QUOTE]

Democrats definition of winning a war must be different than what I am thinking, because the only thing I see them saying we have to do is run away.

Bollocks

[QUOTE=frankenstein;122539191]Bush is an asshat for starting this unnecessary war. The Democrats are just as guilty for promoting the same fear he did and continuing to vote to fund the war. They got elected in Nov 2006 to end the war. Last I checked, we're still over there. Both parties should be ashamed!!!![/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'm sure that if you were the President in the wake of 9/11 and the intelligence community was telling you the Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD's, you would just ignore them

Right

Your nothing more than a monday morning quarterback

9/11 happend because of people LIKE YOU

PATHETIC

[QUOTE=IraHays;122550301][IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/Lolwutpear.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

clearly Catmando must mean every war 1939-1945. Oh wait, that was 1 war. And it was as the name of it tell us, a World War.

[QUOTE=kwskiZX10;122552681]Yeah, I'm sure that if you were the President in the wake of 9/11 and the intelligence community was telling you the Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD's, you would just ignore them

Right

Your nothing more than a monday morning quarterback

9/11 happend because of people LIKE YOU

PATHETIC[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q56/Irahays/WTFITS.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=kwskiZX10;122552681]Yeah, I'm sure that if you were the President in the wake of 9/11 and the intelligence community was telling you the Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD's, you would just ignore them

Right

Your nothing more than a monday morning quarterback

9/11 happend because of people LIKE YOU

PATHETIC[/QUOTE]

STFU

If he was president in that situation, he wouldn't have lied to drag us into war.

And don't even try to pretend that it was an honest mistake. Don't even.

[QUOTE=kwskiZX10;122552681]Yeah, I'm sure that if you were the President in the wake of 9/11 and the intelligence community was telling you the Hussein was an imminent threat with WMD's, you would just ignore them

Right

Your nothing more than a monday morning quarterback

9/11 happend because of people LIKE YOU

PATHETIC[/QUOTE]

Oh I'm afraid I need more clarification about how 9/11 happened because of people like me. I may have to go back and see if I have any posts on the war before it started, as they'll say I'm against it.

I'd also consult the weapons inspectors that were in the country for months.

[QUOTE=Jean-Paul4447;122553691]And don't even try to pretend that it was an honest mistake. Don't even.[/QUOTE]

Even if it was an honest mistake (I was onboard based on what was presented) he still ended up lying.

The reasons for going were to :

1. Gid rid of Saddam.
2. Gid rid of WMD's.

These objectives were achieved. We should be out instead of building huge permanent bases.

[QUOTE=Jean-Paul4447;122553691]STFU

If he was president in that situation, he wouldn't have lied to drag us into war.

And don't even try to pretend that it was an honest mistake. Don't even.[/QUOTE]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 [How did Bush get the intel community to LIE back in 98? anyone? a little help here?]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

These people and many more were liars as well right? and a lot more Democrats, or, obviously JUST BUSH? feel free to tell me what I have missed here..

[QUOTE=Nagalfar;122557221]"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 [How did Bush get the intel community to LIE back in 98? anyone? a little help here?]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

These people and many more were liars as well right? and a lot more Democrats, or, obviously JUST BUSH? feel free to tell me what I have missed here..[/QUOTE]

The fact that Bush LIED TO ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE!!!!!!

This is either unbelievable stupidity or criminally huge obnoxiousness.

[b]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq[/b]
[QUOTE=Congress] SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate
. . .
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.[/QUOTE]

How conveniently people forget. Congress, under the support of [u]both[/u] parties, gave the President explicit authority to use military force against Iraq in 2002.

Congress continues to fund that military action, even under the much-lauded Democratic leadership.

If someone believes Blame is appropriate in this situation, then it needs to be applied in all directions.

[QUOTE=Nagalfar;122522761]First, the war option was put before a vote all the way though (most of the left does not seem to understand HOW American Govt. actually works, so they refer to our war in Iraq as "Bush's War", this thread is primarily for those who don't know), majority's on BOTH SIDES voted to go to war, as much as some of our less educated folks seem to somehow think that Bush is the Grand Emperor, and that he can just do as he pleases, nothing could be further from the truth..

Fact: The President can make the choices that he feels to be best for the nation, but, CONGRESS can at any time stop and REVERSE any decision the President makes.. PERIOD.

Fact:A MAJORITY of Democrats in the Senate and Congress VOTED TO GO TO WAR.. Bush could not have gone to war without their agreeing to do so.

Fact: The Democrats during the last elections ran on a "We will get us out of this war" ticket.. we were told elect us, and we will remove our troops from Iraq.. everyone over the age of 10 probably remembers that (except the left).

Fact: the Democrats have the majority, and could over ride Bush any time they wanted, they promised to get us out of this war, did they? no, they said, "we dont agree with this war", "we dont need to be in Iraq its just costing American lives", and my personal favorite, "This war is IMMORAL in every"..

They are clearly in control, they have the ability to remove American troops any time they feel it would be in Americas best interest.. have they? lol, not only have they not even moved to vote for removal of American Troops, they voted to FUND THE DAMN WAR.. they are against the war? yet they fund it so that it can continue? lol, is anyone really buying this crap that they are not for this war? ... thats akin to saying, "son I dont want you to go out tonight, here is lots of money, almost enough to break our bank, have a good time and be home by tomorrow morning!".

We often see those on the left referring to Iraq as "Bush's War", yet, who voted to continue fighting it by funding it? the DEMOCRATS.. that makes it a DEMOCRAT WAR.. hell if they are funding it, and not fighting against American Troops being there, by not so much as a single vote in the house, and they are the ultimate voice, and get the final say on weather or not Americans fight in Iraq.. there is no way to lie about it, it's their damn war.. even if Bush wanted to leave, HE CANT.. unless Congress agrees, that by definition makes this a DEMOCRATS WAR... no rebelling against it, no votes, and they fund it.

Bush was not a spearhead against Saddam, the baton was passed to him from Clinton, there is no denying that.. Gore, and most of Washington was hot after this war, the only people who dont seem to know that obviously have selective memory.. here are just 2 examples for proof..

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Bush inherited this war, while it didnt start under Clinton he damn sure added the wood, and started the embers... 9/11, Katrina, the war on 2 fronts... troops still in Yugo.. these hit our country damn hard, and has cost America how much? anyone?.. thats what I thought.. considering what the hell we have been though in the last 10 years, we are doing pretty damn good, most nations would never be able to survive this.. we have.. granted, we are sucking wind.. but we are still standing.

Make no mistake, I dont like Bush, and I think the last President on his level was Carter.. but, in all fairness this is not his war, it never was, Congress is the one who says go or say, and when the Democrats say STAY and here is the money to do it.. it is then their war.. like it or not.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto. Were that the case, had a few more seats gone to the Democrats last November, things [i]might[/i] be different. At least now, there is a little more oversight, and less bull**** coming from the White House. Funny how much difference the swearing in of witnesses at congressional hearings makes.

[QUOTE=SDMuscleBuddy;122560641]Actually, the Democrats don't have enough votes to override the veto. Were that the case, had a few more seats gone to the Democrats last November, things [i]might[/i] be different.[/QUOTE]Spending bills need to be written and passed to become effective. If they only wrote and passed bills that explicitly excluded funding for operations in Iraq, then operations in Iraq would cease rather quickly.

By the way, what happened to the much-touted "mandate from the People" when the Democrats were "swept" into Congress - yet still with numbers unable to overturn a Veto? Maybe it wasn't such a Mandate after all. . .

[QUOTE=Nagalfar;122557221]"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 [How did Bush get the intel community to LIE back in 98? anyone? a little help here?]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

These people and many more were liars as well right? and a lot more Democrats, or, obviously JUST BUSH? feel free to tell me what I have missed here..[/QUOTE]

lol how many Zionist neo-cons can you spot on the list of people that pushed for war with Iraq.

Bush is awesome. He managed to convince an entire nation of idiots that we are at war against these "terrorists" that will be there for the next 2000 years (terrorism isn?t a "nation" and will never die). Perpetual war to justify our own enslavement and that of innocent people in the middle east. 1984.... In 20 years people will just accept this state of perpetual war with this imaginary enemy. Every now and then we'll show them clips of troops digging up another rag-head in some cave in Afghanistan and tell them we just averted the nuclear destruction of New York.

The only solution to this is Ron Paul. Why? because he knows this war is bull**** and he will end it. That is, until he gets assassinated by Halliburton and GE hit-men.

[QUOTE=nutsy54;122560291][b]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq[/b]


How conveniently people forget. Congress, under the support of [u]both[/u] parties gave the President explicit authority to use military force against Iraq in 2002.

Congress continues to fund that military action, even under the much-lauded Democratic leadership.

If someone believes Blame is appropriate in this situation, then it needs to be applied in all directions.[/QUOTE]

GW sold this war to us on false pretenses, just like his daddy did the last war. Members on both sides would have voted differently if the truth had been known prior to the invasion. Nevertheless, GW's claim was that he needed the authorization to strengthen his hand. Force was, in his words, a "last resort". Bull****. He always intended to invade. This much is obvious from all of the evidence.

The problem is, now that we've screwed up, how do we remove ourselves without the place blowing up? All of the Republicans seem content to stay there forever, and none of the Democrats seem to have a plan.

[QUOTE=BigMass;122562941]

Bush is awesome. He managed to convince an entire nation of idiots that we are at war against these "terrorists" that will be there for the next 2000 years (terrorism isn?t a "nation" and will never die). Perpetual war to justify our own enslavement and that of innocent people in the middle east. 1984.... In 20 years people will just accept this state of perpetual war with this imaginary enemy. Every now and then we'll show them clips of troops digging up another rag-head in some cave in Afghanistan and tell them we just averted the nuclear destruction of New York.

[/QUOTE]

So imaginary enemies, flew imaginary aircraft, into Imaginary buildings, killing thousands of imaginary Americans.. Saddam fooled a imaginary world, shooting imaginary missiles at imaginary American and British pilots in imaginary aircraft.. all the while gassing imaginary Kurds with imaginary WMDs.. got it, thanx for clarifying that for us.

Are you real? or imaginary?