You remember when you were in the fourth grade and one of your friends was beating up the fat kid on the playground at recess? You and your other friends would gather around him in a circle, shout encouragement to him, one or two of you might even hold the fat kid. Then the biggest, burlyest male teacher on the playground, the one rumored to leave bruises with his paddle, came walking up and everyone dispersed and acted as if they had nothing to do with it, leaving the poor guy on the receiving end of the encouragement just moments earlier to suffer the consequences?
That seems to me to be what not only the Democrats and a good portion of the media in this country are doing, but what more than a few on this forum are doing as well. How quickly we forget that at the dawn of this war, we were all circled around the president, shouting encouragement at him. Then when the WMDs failed to turn up and the insurgency started to increase, we all decided that the war in Iraq wasn't such a good thing after all and regressed back to our bullyish days on the school playground.
Who supported this war?
Well, for starters, you and I did. Polls conducted before the onset of the war consistently found between 58% and 65% of the general populus in favor of the war. A Gallup Poll shortly before the war began found 67% of Americans believing that Bush had successfully made the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. A poll shortly thereafter by CNN and NBC found only 27% of Americans opposed to military action in Iraq.
Then there were the Democrats. Remember the 2004 presidential primary, before the war had really turned sour, when the Democrats shunned anti-war Howard Dean like a lepor because of his opposition to the war? Remember before the war started when a majority of Democrats voiced their opposition to the war? Remember after the war started, when a majority of Democrats voted, more than once, to continue funding for the war? Democrat poster-boy John Kerry, in fact, stated in 2004 that even if he had known that WMDs would not be found, he would have voted to authorize the war. Of course that was before his bid for the White House heated up and he decided it would be best to not side with the president and said that there was nothing in his life he regretted more than voting for the Iraq war. In fact, in 2002, when the war drums were really beating in unison, it was the Democrats, NOT the Republicans, who controlled the Senate. Tom Daschle was the Majority Leader, for pete's sake.
Oh, but they have an excuse. They were fed faulty intelligence. You know, the same intelligence that Clinton had access to; Clinton, of course, making the statement in 1998 that, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Or that Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security director had when he said, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Lest we forget, we were this close (holds up fingers for Ifferd, et al, to see) from invading Iraq in 1998 under Clinton. The WMDs would have been found no more then than they were found in 2003. Except it would have been the other party responsible. What would the response have been then? Actually, I know what it would've been: It would've been moronic Republicans calling Clinton a liar. That's the way politics works in America. But the point is that it was both the Democrats AND the Republicans "” Clinton and Bush "” who claimed Iraq had WMDs. We did not just begin hearing the case made for Iraq's WMDs and disarming Hussein when Bush took office in January 2001, nor did we just start hearing it after 9/11. We began hearing the case made for WMDs and disarmament during the Clinton administration. And in the process, the majority of us became believers. So if there were lies told, the blame lies with more than one party, with more than one president. How many of you Bush-bashers will admit that?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
Don't really care about your poll. I never was for the invasion of Iraq,NEVER. Afghanistan I said kill every terroist you can find, by the way. Where in the heck is the person who planned 9/11 he sure wasn't hanged last week.
To answer your question not me.
Quote:
They were fed faulty intelligence.You know, the same intelligence that Clinton had access to;
REally Ben I don't remember hearing this when Clinton was in office
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
WHen this was really the truth.
the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim "” merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that "I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."
CHIRP, Chirp
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
I don't recall hardly anyone arguing when Bush proposed a global war on terrorism and states that supported terrorism. And i could be wrong, but I never recalled him saying that we would only go after those folks that could be specifically linked to 9-11. It was more of the attitude that we have had enough of terrorism in general and are finally going to take it head on. As far as I am concerned, one of the few politicians that had any cojones was Kucinich (spelling) since he was vocally opposed to the war from the very beginning. Most others just rode the bandwagon until they had the chance to play partisan politics.
__________________
"Shoot him again....his soul is still dancing"
Lest we forget, we were this close (holds up fingers for Ifferd, et al, to see) from invading Iraq in 1998 under Clinton. The WMDs would have been found no more then than they were found in 2003. Except it would have been the other party responsible. What would the response have been then? Actually, I know what it would've been: It would've been moronic Republicans calling Clinton a liar. That's the way politics works in America. But the point is that it was both the Democrats AND the Republicans "” Clinton and Bush "” who claimed Iraq had WMDs. We did not just begin hearing the case made for Iraq's WMDs and disarming Hussein when Bush took office in January 2001, nor did we just start hearing it after 9/11. We began hearing the case made for WMDs and disarmament during the Clinton administration. And in the process, the majority of us became believers. So if there were lies told, the blame lies with more than one party, with more than one president. How many of you Bush-bashers will admit that?
I believe Bush Sr. was president before clinton and was actually in Iraq to if my memory serves me correctly. Maybe you seen the pic of rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and the whole controversy over that. When was WND talked about and who was in command. That would be Bush Sr. now would it be. I love how they allways bring clinton up. Clinton amussed us couple times with his ways. Now Bush is a funny monkey we can never get tired of making fun of cause he is allways doing something stupid or funny. He will never cease to amuse us. Don't even put climton in the same boat here. Bush makes climton look like a choir boy compared to him.
Why is it allways Clinton,Clinton,Clinton anyway? Ypu Clinton fall back on are sounding like a skipped record. Monica Or that crap above that Ben said. Come up with some new dirt will ya? Bush allways does for us.
Did clinton start a civil war and kill 100s of thousands and made it more likely we would be attacked because of this monkey in the whitehouse wanted to please his daddy by capturing Saddam.? Not a chance. Big difference there.
REally Ben I don't remember hearing this when Clinton weas in office
Oh, you don't? Is your memory that short or were you in a hole during early 1998? Do I need to start pulling up more quotes from Clinton and his cabinet? Clinton made the same claims in 1998 that Bush made in 2002.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I believe Bush Sr. was president before clinton and was actually in Iraq to if my memory serves me correctly. Maybe you seen the pic of rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and the whole controversy over that. When was WND talked about and who was in command. That would be Bush Sr. now would it be. I love how they allways bring clinton up. Clinton amussed us couple times with his ways. Now Bush is a funny monkey we can never get tired of making fun of cause he is allways doing something stupid or funny. He will never cease to amuse us. Don't even put climton in the same boat here. Bush makes climton look like a choir boy compared to him.
"Climton" never tried to make the case to the American public that Saddam Hussein had WMDs? You're as forgetful as Charlie, apparently.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
If you can put forth a qoute the clinton said Iraq tried to buy Uranuim from Niger I'd love to see it.
? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Clinton said on repeated occasions that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What difference does it make where he got the ingredients? Both administrations made the same claim.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
If you can put forth a qoute the clinton said Iraq tried to buy Uranuim from Niger I'd love to see it.
? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Clinton said on repeated occasions that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What difference does it make where he got the ingredients? Both administrations made the same claim.
Who supported this war?
