Thread: democrats views on start of iraq war

I saw the part where the Democrats agreed to invade Iraq, I saw the part where Bush said we shouldn't try to "rewrite history," I saw the part that said "Find out more about Democrat Dishonesty."

But where was the part that showed Democrats being dishonest and/or denying that they voted for the war originally? Shouldn't that have been included in the video?

3/4 of the Democrats voted for the resolution for the Iraq war.

Iraq is not about the parties actually, but it's being politically played out that way because of the coming elections.

Another reason that supports this is that the Demos in the House and Senate haven't done much since winning the elections in November of last year.

Originally Posted by squanto

I saw the part where the Democrats agreed to invade Iraq, I saw the part where Bush said we shouldn't try to "rewrite history," I saw the part that said "Find out more about Democrat Dishonesty."

But where was the part that showed Democrats being dishonest and/or denying that they voted for the war originally? Shouldn't that have been included in the video?

it references the dems labeling this as bush's war. something i think that is not too hard a stretch when it comes to the current attidude of the democratic party

Originally Posted by bio-chem

it references the dems labeling this as bush's war. something i think that is not too hard a stretch when it comes to the current attidude of the democratic party

No matter "who's war it is," the next administration will have to deal with it, regardless of which party gets in the Executive branch.

The U.S. may be there for many years to come if you look at the number of bases, size and cost of the embassy, and the geo-political interests involved.

Iraq is just a continuation of American foreign policy over the last 150 years.

Democrats are still loyal to corporate interests and are part of the elitists and not true populists. So this thread has no point. Democrats and Republicans are cut from the some cloth, democrats claiming to be more socially liberal and republicans hiding behind the flag, and failing that, the bible.

The blame lies equally on both sides, IMO. Sure, it was a GOP concept, but the Dems voted for it for the most part, and the fact that they say they were deceived only shows their incompetence. IMO, to make the decision to go to war, you have to weigh all of the information that is given to you and get info that is not given to you to come to an informed decision. As far as I know, going to war because so and so said such and such happened is highly incompetent. Dig a little deeper, earn that $85k a year that is handed to you, not to mention all of the kickbacks and perks of the job.

This goes far beyond Right vs. left, this is who is doing their job.

Clearly that is computer enhanced and edited. There is no way the Democrats could say all those things, and then keep a straight face while taking the position that they do today.

This has all been resolved. The reasons for attacking Iraq were that there was a distinct threat from Sodamn Insane, he was seeking nukes, and he was a direct contributor to 9/11. All these have been proven false. Well, that and that squanto is an idiot. Those several separate things have all been proven to be factual by on their own individual merits. We need not waste time trying to beat these dead horses any further.

Dale when you try ahead of time to say anyone who responds after you that he/she was lied too is at fault for being deceived you are saying we should never trust what we are told by our leaders and just say no from now on. That makes no sense to me at all. If I cannot trust that my president will not falsify the reasons for war then why would I have him in office?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

This has all been resolved. The reasons for attacking Iraq were that there was a distinct threat from Sodamn Insane, he was seeking nukes, and he was a direct contributor to 9/11. All these have been proven false. Well, that and that squanto is an idiot. Those several separate things have all been proven to be factual by on their own individual merits. We need not waste time trying to beat these dead horses any further.

Dale when you try ahead of time to say anyone who responds after you that he/she was lied too is at fault for being deceived you are saying we should never trust what we are told by our leaders and just say no from now on. That makes no sense to me at all. If I cannot trust that my president will not falsify the reasons for war then why would I have him in office?

No, I am saying that if you are going to make a decision that will literally affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, you should probably check a second source. Although it is quite unheard of for a politician from one party to deceive one from the other party to get his or her initiatives fast-tracked. Although I do have to say that I don't believe GW to be a liar, I believe him to be incompetent.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, I am saying that if you are going to make a decision that will literally affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, you should probably check a second source.

Yo have to know that this is a very weak position Dale, but I'll go here with you out of respect. WHAT other source? We are told by the US gov that they have proof of mobile bio weapons labs (proven a lie), proof that Sodamn is seeking nuke stuff and blah blah. What other source do we go to?

We had Kay telling us there was as of yet no evidence to support the stuff coming from the White house, but he was outright ignored and his reports were buried back by the obituaries. The average guy on the street had no other source.

Well, I would have went, "Show me the proof. May we speak with these experts?" You're telling me we can get a sworn statement by some guy who is the Uncle of the guy who cleaned out Barry Bonds' locker and found a clear substance that could have been steroids or could have been vaseline, but talking to these folks that came to the conclusion that there were WMDs in Iraq would have been a waste of time?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Well, I would have went, "Show me the proof. May we speak with these experts?" You're telling me we can get a sworn statement by some guy who is the Uncle of the guy who cleaned out Barry Bonds' locker and found a clear substance that could have been steroids or could have been vaseline, but talking to these folks that came to the conclusion that there were WMDs in Iraq would have been a waste of time?

So then your position here is that I should have what? Gone to the white house and demanded to see the reports? In spite of what the white house was saying, what CondomLisa was saying?

I'm not tracking with here on this one Dale ... I'm lost. How would we have done what you suggest that we should have done?

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

No, I am saying that if you are going to make a decision that will literally affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, you should probably check a second source. Although it is quite unheard of for a politician from one party to deceive one from the other party to get his or her initiatives fast-tracked. Although I do have to say that I don't believe GW to be a liar, I believe him to be incompetent.

Good luck with trying to get that across.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Good luck with trying to get that across.

Okay so then you try cuz he ain't getting anywhere.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Okay so then you try cuz he ain't getting anywhere.

There's no point. I'd rather try to stab someone to death with Jell-O.

Originally Posted by DOMS

There's no point. I'd rather try to stab someone to death with Jell-O.

Now that would be fun to watch. We could freeze it first ...

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Well, that and that squanto is an idiot.

Where did this come from BoneCrusher? Is there something you want to tell me?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

The reasons for attacking Iraq were that there was a distinct threat from Sodamn Insane, he was seeking nukes, and he was a direct contributor to 9/11. All these have been proven false. Well, that and that squanto is an idiot.

Oh I get it, you think that I'm responsible for the war in Iraq.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

All these have been proven false. Well, that and that squanto is an idiot.

Oh, so I'm not an idiot?? I'm really confused.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

So then your position here is that I should have what? Gone to the white house and demanded to see the reports? In spite of what the white house was saying, what CondomLisa was saying?

I'm not tracking with here on this one Dale ... I'm lost. How would we have done what you suggest that we should have done?

You and I don't have to do that, that is the job of the elected officials. I am saying THEY should have done that. People vote for them to do exactly that. It is their job to get shit right, not to just assume something is so because someone says it is.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

You and I don't have to do that, that is the job of the elected officials. I am saying THEY should have done that. People vote for them to do exactly that. It is their job to get shit right, not to just assume something is so because someone says it is.

... and when they encounter facts that show the rest to be bullshit to POINT IT OUT!!!

Case in point:

"We have not found at this point actual weapons," he said. "It does not mean that we've concluded there are no actual weapons. It means at this point in time -- and it's a huge country with a lot to do -- that we have not yet found weapons."

David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq
3 October 2003.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

... and when they encounter facts that show the rest to be bullshit to POINT IT OUT!!!

Case in point:

I agree, but I agree that it should be before sending our troops to death.

Originally Posted by squanto

Where did this come from BoneCrusher? Is there something you want to tell me?
Oh I get it, you think that I'm responsible for the war in Iraq. IF you took that from what I said then you prove my accusations about you to be correct ...

Oh, so I'm not an idiot?? I'm really confused. This is your normal state of mind ... confusion. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln that said, “It’s better to remain silent and let everyone think you’re a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

That was a reference to your earlier post where you made no contribution to the topic but instead just spoke in an arrogant way about zilch as though you were the shit because you are a Republican. This exact mentality is why you ARE an idiot. You are not the shit just because you are a Republican and you diminish the quality of the Republican party for the rest of us with this sophmoronic kind of rhetoric.

squanto when you start to actually say something that requires more than a two digit IQ people will stop viewing you as an idiot. Well that, and after you get a personality upgrade.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

That was a reference to your earlier post where you made no contribution to the topic but instead just spoke in an arrogant way about zilch as though you were the shit because you are a Republican. This exact mentality is why you ARE an idiot. You are not the shit just because you are a Republican and you diminish the quality of the Republican party for the rest of us with this sophmoronic kind of rhetoric.

squanto when you start to actually say something that requires more than a two digit IQ people will stop viewing you as an idiot. Well that, and after you get a personality upgrade.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I said:

Originally Posted by squanto

I saw the part where the Democrats agreed to invade Iraq, I saw the part where Bush said we shouldn't try to "rewrite history," I saw the part that said "Find out more about Democrat Dishonesty."

But where was the part that showed Democrats being dishonest and/or denying that they voted for the war originally? Shouldn't that have been included in the video?

Where did I write that I was a Republican? If I implied it, that was not my intention. I know I'm sarcastic a lot, but I really thought these things should have been included in the video. It would have made it much more convincing.

You might want to tone it down with the name-calling and insults. It doesn't make you look too bright, and it makes you seem rather.... childish.

Originally Posted by squanto

I think you misunderstood my post.

I said:


Where did I write that I was a Republican? If I implied it, that was not my intention. I know I'm sarcastic a lot, but I really thought these things should have been included in the video. It would have made it much more convincing.

You might want to tone it down with the name-calling and insults. It doesn't make you look too bright, and it makes you seem rather.... childish.

Perspective is a thing created in most cases by the history of the person being observed. You priors make it hard to see non-sarcastic intention or anything resembling substance in that post. It looks as though you are bashing the Dem's again.

If I misunderstood you then I was wrong and I apologize.

Are you denying that you are a Republican now?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Now that would be fun to watch. We could freeze it first ...

Yeah, I figured that it could be done that way, but I felt that writing "room temperature Jell-O" would have taken something out of my post.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Yeah, I figured that it could be done that way, but I felt that writing "room temperature Jell-O" would have taken something out of my post.

Lol ... It was funny imagery.