Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

I feel compelled to point out again and again that once you go to war, it isn't easy to change your mind. We are all in this together. Your Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans. Go ahead and repeat the mantra that Bush made it all up. A Congressional investigation found he did nothing of the kind. Hussein was regarded as being dangerous with WMD before Bush even got to Washington. He decided to do something besides talk, and the Democrats agreed. Now, it would be far more productive for Democrats to do something constructive instead of investigate, investigate, investigate, criticize, criticize, criticize. They need to step up to the plate.

0 Replies

Line by line.

okie wrote:

I feel compelled to point out again and again that once you go to war, it isn't easy to change your mind.

A great argument for not rushing in to a war - which is exactly what was done with the Iraq war. There was no rush, other then Bush's desire to push the thing through before people could stop him.

Quote:

We are all in this together. Your Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans.

Actually, only half of the House Dems voted for the war. Many did not.

Quote:

Go ahead and repeat the mantra that Bush made it all up. A Congressional investigation found he did nothing of the kind.

Bull crap. A Congressional investigation that was ran by Republicans and not allowed to view the vast majority of the information.

Quote:

Hussein was regard as being dangerous with WMD before Bush even got to Washington.

Sure, by the same NeoCons who made the war happen.

Quote:

He decided to do something besides talk, and the Democrats agreed.

They were pushed into it through a combination of faulty intel (presented as a 'slam dunk,' a lie) and political pressure after 9/11 to not be 'soft on terror.' I agree that they should have voted against it in the Senate. But, the Republicans controlled the Senate, so they wouldn't have been able to stop it anyways.

Quote:

Now, it would be far more productive for Democrats to do something constructive instead of investigate, investigate, investigate, criticize, criticize, criticize. They need to step up to the plate.

They have a lot of catching up to do, with the Republican Congress having abandoned their duties to investigate and criticize the Exec. branch. And they have passed legislation, which Bush has vetoed; proposed other legislation, which the Republicans in Congress have used every procedural possible to block. They are working. You are blaming them for being unable to overcome the opposition from your own party. That's bullsh*t. If you want to see the Dems start passing more bills, why don't you write your Senator and tell them to stop Filibustering bills that the Dems know they have the votes to pass?

I suspect you aren't interested in the Dems actually passing bills, at all, but instead are interested in criticizing them as much as possible.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Your Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans.

Not true. House Democrats voted against it 126:81; Senate Democrats voted for it 29:21. For comparison, House Republicans voted 215:6 in favor, Senate Republicans 48:1 in favor (Source). So Democrats did not vote for authorizing force in Iraq. The most you can say about them is that they were divided.Certainly Democrats didn't vote for it "just like Republicans", whose support was nearly unanimous.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I feel compelled to point out again and again that once you go to war, it isn't easy to change your mind.

I agree. Which would make you think that you shouldn't get into an adventure of that kind just as light headed as the Bush administration went into Iraq.

okie wrote:

We are all in this together. Your Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans.

"Your Democrats?" Well, I don't know if you were addressing me here, but they are certainly not my Democrats. Especially not those who were in favour of the Iraq invasion.

okie wrote:

Go ahead and repeat the mantra that Bush made it all up.

I don't think he made it all up. He rather exaggerated some facts, without minding if anyone drew false conclusions. Administration officials mentioned 9/11, Saddam Hussein and WMD in the same sentence without minding if people drew the wrong conclusion.
Oh, and he certainly wasn't alone. Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang did their to help create the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States.

okie wrote:

A Congressional investigation found he did nothing of the kind.

That he didn't mislead the public? Was that investigated? I doubt it.

okie wrote:

Hussein was regarded as being dangerous with WMD before Bush even got to Washington.

Right. Now, as Hussein didn't have any WMD in 2003 - was he still regarded as being dangerous?

Answer: clickediclick --> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ

okie wrote:

He decided to do something besides talk, and the Democrats agreed. Now, it would be far more productive for Democrats to do something constructive instead of investigate, investigate, investigate, criticize, criticize, criticize. They need to step up to the plate.

He decided to do something about what? Saddam's non-existent WMD? Saddam's non-existent links to Al Qaeda? Or was it something else?

What, specifically, did Bush decide to do something about?

0 Replies

The Dems did not vote to go to war. They voted to allow Bush to take us to war should he find this necessary. We now know that it was clear to him that there was no necessity to invade Iraq.

0 Replies

Thanks for re-posting the numbers, Thomas, but enough Democrats voted for authorization to go to war that it happened. Everybody knew what this authorization meant. In regard to rushing to war, there was no rush, if anything it drug on too long and we telegraphed every intent months ahead, so that Hussein may have shipped some things out of country. And in regard to the talk about Hussein and WMD, it was not just "neocons" as you claim, cyclops, it included Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and other notable Democrats, some of the same people that now have selective memory in regard to their own history on this issue. This is about taking responsibility, something that many politicians are not very good at.

0 Replies

I believe the following article rightfully belongs on this thread, because it is about Bush and the support he's still getting from the GOP members of the senate.

House Democrats push new withdrawal bill

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
23 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - House Democrats have drafted new Iraq legislation they hope will appeal to Republicans fed up with the war: Start withdrawing troops in two months but leave it up to President Bush to decide when to complete the pullout.

The vote will come next week, as members take up a $460 billion bill covering military spending for 2008. Another vote could come again in September, after Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus delivers a long-anticipated assessment on the war and Congress considers a $142 billion measure needed to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is big time," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said of the upcoming fall debate. "When you get to September, this is history. This is when we're going to have a real confrontation with the president trying to work things out."

The House has passed similar anti-war measures in the past, but has been unable to push the legislation through the Senate, where Democrats hold a slimmer majority and Republicans have routinely blocked such bills from advancing.

Most recently, the House approved legislation that would have required troop withdrawals to begin this November and finish by April 1.

Under his latest plan, Murtha said he envisions troop withdrawals to start in November and take about a year to complete. A draft of his proposal did not include a firm end date.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thanks for re-posting the numbers, Thomas, but enough Democrats voted for authorization to go to war that it happened.

It would have happened if ZERO democrats voted for authorization. This statement makes no sense.

And you need to retract your statement "Your Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans." which has been shown to be completly FALSE. A retraction when this type of error is found is justified and no one would fault you for it.

0 Replies

maporsche, I think your statement is inaccurate. I believe the authorization had bipartisan support. Quoting Thomas again:

Quote:

Not true. House Democrats voted against it 126:81; Senate Democrats voted for it 29:21. For comparison, House Republicans voted 215:6 in favor, Senate Republicans 48:1 in favor (Source). So Democrats did not vote for authorizing force in Iraq. The most you can say about them is that they were divided.Certainly Democrats didn't vote for it "just like Republicans", whose support was nearly unanimous.

So, Senate Democrats did in fact vote for it, and a significant minority of the House Democrats voted for it. One member of the Senate, namely Hillary Clinton, voted for it, now the leader of the Democratic Party and probable party nominee in the next election.

0 Replies

The resolution to authorize war was in the event Saddam refused to stop his WMD program. Since he didn't have one, and none were found after Bush started his illegal war, Bush should be charged with a crime. UN inspectors were looking for Saddam's WMDs when Bush chased them out, so his action cancels condition #1. Bush failed to get UN approval, so that cancels condition #2.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The resolution to authorize war was in the event Saddam refused to stop his WMD program. Since he didn't have one, and none were found after Bush started his illegal war, Bush should be charged with a crime. UN inspectors were looking for Saddam's WMDs when Bush chased them out, so his action cancels condition #1. Bush failed to get UN approval, so that cancels condition #2.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Shows again how easily you can fool all (most) of the people for some of the time.
Convince them there's a threat, then ask permission to deal (appropriately of course) with it.
As Robin Cook (British Foreign Secretary) said before his resignation, "Iraq was not invaded because it posed a threat, because it was strong. It was invaded because it was weak".

How do you think the vote would have gone if the resolution had been worded more honestly, e.g.

"The President is authorised to use our military to attack Iraq, and to occupy it for an unspecified length of time, to control the mineral resources of that country, and to build sufficient permanent bases there to keep a sizeable and significant military presence there in perpetuity."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thanks for re-posting the numbers, Thomas, but enough Democrats voted for authorization to go to war that it happened.

Three points:

(1) This is not the claim I was answering to. I was answering to your statement: "Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans." This was false. Now you have taken a new position on this point without acknowledging that the old one was flawed.

(2) Your new, weaker claim means little. Even if all 207 House Democrats who voted, and 47 of the 50 Senate Democrats, had voted against the war, "enough Democrats" would still have "voted for authorization to go to war that it happened." This is a meaningless standard for arguing that Congress Democrats are co-responsible for the war.

(3) Let me suggest a more meaningful test for judging the Democrats' responsibility. It is to ask: If Congress as a whole had voted as the Democrats did, then what? The answer is, the bill would have died in the House, and Bush would not have authority to use force. Now let's cross-check: what if Congress as a whole had voted as the Republicans did? The bill would have passed both houses by an even higher margin, giving Bush the same authority to use force that he now has. This is a Republican war. This is a Republican quagmire.

Maybe I should drop it here; I am clearly not a Bush supporter, so shouldn't have butted into this thread. Sorry about that, Bush-supporters!

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Thanks for re-posting the numbers, Thomas, but enough Democrats voted for authorization to go to war that it happened.

Three points:

(1) This is not the claim I was answering to. I was answering to your statement: "Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans." This was false. Now you have taken a new position on this point without acknowledging that the old one was flawed.

To clarify, Thomas, maybe something is lost in the translation, but when I said Democrats voted for it, just like Republicans, I did not mean they voted with the same plurality or the same percentages, but as your numbers show, a majority of the Senate Democrats did vote for it, and although a majority of House Democrats did not vote for it, there was still a very significant number that did vote for it, and when you add up all the Congressional votes, the fact that a large number of Democrats voted for it, including a majority of Senate Democrats, I think it is fair to say it had bipartisan support. Perhaps many Democrats did not vote for it, but even the ones that did vote for it are not taking responsibility for their vote now. That was what I was pointing out.

Quote:

(2) Your new, weaker claim means little. Even if all 207 House Democrats who voted, and 47 of the 50 Senate Democrats, had voted against the war, "enough Democrats" would still have "voted for authorization to go to war that it happened." This is a meaningless standard for arguing that Congress Democrats are co-responsible for the war.

True, Republicans have quite a bit more responsibility, but Democrats have some, specifically those that did vote for it, which as I pointed out, includes the current leader of the Democratic Party and frontrunner Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. Inasmuch as the party supports her candidacy now, this support should also take responsibility for her past actions on this issue.

Quote:

(3) Let me suggest a more meaningful test for judging the Democrats' responsibility. It is to ask: If Congress as a whole had voted as the Democrats did, then what? The answer is, the bill would have died in the House, and Bush would not have authority to use force. Now let's cross-check: what if Congress as a whole had voted as the Republicans did? The bill would have passed both houses by an even higher margin, giving Bush the same authority to use force that he now has. This is a Republican war. This is a Republican quagmire.

Maybe I should drop it here; I am clearly not a Bush supporter, so shouldn't have butted into this thread. Sorry about that, Bush-supporters!

No problem, Thomas. I have no problem saying this war is primarily a result of Republican support, however, there are a significant number of Democrats that also bear responsibility. They cannot simply say it would have passed anyway so I have no responsibility. If politicians are allowed to do that, then individual Republicans could also do the same. That is a slick explanation, Thomas, but it does not fly. Besides, we should go to war in a united fashion and abide by the constitutional mandate of how government makes those decisions. When I was drafted into the Army in 1968 and sent to Vietnam, I did not say, sorry, I did not vote to go there. I abided by the decisions of my representatives, whether I had voted for them or not, and it was started by a guy named Lyndon Johnson that I would never have voted for, no way. This is an American war in Iraq in coordination with other allies and with the government of Iraq, not Bush's war. I am going to continue to point out the responsibility of politicians to their own past positions.

As I've said many times, if a politician opposed this war from the very beginning, their opinion deserves much more respect than those that flip flop according to the political winds that blow. You know as well as I do that if the situation improves in Iraq to the point that real stabilization occurs, we seem to be winning, and opinion polls rise in favor, Hillary will be trumpeting her past support for the war.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Maybe I should drop it here; I am clearly not a Bush supporter, so shouldn't have butted into this thread. Sorry about that, Bush-supporters!

It was nice of you to drop by, Thomas.

0 Replies

Bush Aide Blocked Report

Quote:

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger, a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since 2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the "Call to Action on Global Health" while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration's frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not cite Steiger by name or detail the report's contents and its implications for American public health.

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released."

0 Replies

The surgeon general's report as pdf-data here

(The Post notes that "This copy of the unpublished Surgeon General's Call to Action on Global Health is a draft document that its authors expected to update and revise before making public. It is not a final version.")

0 Replies

Carmona told lawmakers that, as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released.

Are we sure it wasn't a political document to begin with? Just a question, and a suspicion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Are we sure it wasn't a political document to begin with? Just a question, and a suspicion.

Here's the draft version of the document. Walter linked to it in his post right above yours.

(I have no doubt you will find it to be a political document. It reads like the Communist Manifesto.)

0 Replies

It is a political document - 100 percent. If I were in a position to deep six that document as an official statement of the US government, I would have done it without any hesitation, and I've only read the first two pages.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
Are we sure it wasn't a political document to begin with? Just a question, and a suspicion.

Here's the draft version of the document. Walter linked to it in his post right above yours.

(I have no doubt you will find it to be a political document. It reads like the Communist Manifesto.)

So we haven't done anything to help anybody up until now? Also, being we should care about life of other people, is abortion a problem that needs to be addressed now that health is being recognized as an issue now for the first time, apparently with this report? How many million have died so far? And is health now only the U.S. responsibility? Also, does it matter whether individuals take care of themselves or whether other countries have any responsibility for their own citizens?

Just a few questions that come to mind.

Stupid old me, I thought wrongly that we have been trying to help people be healthy around the world for decades. I thought that was what the Peace Corp did. I thought I had a cousin that died in Aftrica 30 years ago trying to help some people. Dang, I guess I was wrong all this time.

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know