Goodbye, Fallujah; Goodbye, Mosul; Watch Out, Baghdad!

Clinton, Feinstien, and Kerry are neocons?  Oh my!

 

Senate Democratic votes for the Iraq War

If you remember that day, it was a day of speeches. And at least out among the Littles, the final count wasn’t known until the roll was called. Here are your brave warrior Dems, those who voted Yes, covered in testosterone (or confusion) and glory. I’ve highlighted a few names to note:

YEAs — 77
Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Breaux (D-LA) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Daschle (D-SD) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA)	Hollings (D-SC) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Schumer (D-NY) Torricelli (D-NJ)

Thats what happens when you just pull out.  While we never should have gone in, as you indicate, in the first place when we did there should have been a mission other than turning it all over to one of the groups that was fighting the other.  America, when we defeated Germany and Japan didn't turn it right back in the hands of those who we fought against.  Must like releasing those five of the taliban for the trader we got back they will only be back in the saddle killing Americans or fighting against our interest again.  Now you have Iraq ripe with all kinds of military hardware that we have given them and left behind for the Taliban and other terrorist to grab and use against us in other places and potentially here at home.

 

While maybe we should have done things differently one thing is for sure, as far as I believe it is.  Our current administration is totally amateurish and incapable of war or fighting a battle for they won't even admit we have an enemy and refuse to name RADICAL Islam as a threat.  They believe we can negotiate with people today and have no idea what a Jihad is or what they people plan to do.  But they are the elected party and people so we are stuck with what most people voted for now only to survey the damage and carnage we are allowing to follow.

We spent years and years enriching American contractors while failing to show the Iraqis how democracy would help them.  The whole thing was to enrich the military industrial complex, and it worked.  They made billions and taxpayers are stuck paying the bill.

The liberals look at the fall of Iraq as a political victory.  Sad.  Anything that takes the focus off Obama's scandals right?  Who cares about the VA after all, nothing in it for our side right?  Have fun celebrating while all the hard fought gains of real men are washed away.  

The liberals look at the fall of Iraq as a political victory.  Sad.  Anything that takes the focus off Obama's scandals right?  Who cares about the VA after all, nothing in it for our side right?  Have fun celebrating while all the hard fought gains of real men are washed away.  

 

Chuck Farley, you are sick.  Those are your own words, you must believe them.  

I stand by my post,  

I am not happy about the developments in Iraq.  We killed and maimed thousands of americans and all that we accomplished was to increase the defense contractors bottom line.  

If you dems don't like wars, you shouldn't start them.

This is a bad bad situation. It's time to come together as one.Of course that's only a dream..Look at the Viet Nam fiasco..

Our political system is SCREWED!I

I thought Bush STARTED the Iraq war anyway..Isn't he a republican?

 

bush started the war based on lies so don't be surprised that bestun tells one to cover him up as in

Iraq asked for help over a month ago and were turned down by the Obama administration.  We could have at least trad to help with air strikes but Obama took a political calculation and bird dogged it.  This administration has squandered our gains in Iraq starting in 2011 when it failed to secure a agreement allowing some American troops to stay in Iraq to train the Iraqi army.  There is plenty of blame to go around especially with Maliki but I'm confident we wouldn't be looking at a full blown civil war if we had a some semblance of competence in this administration.  Just look at our failures and scandals.  I'm surprised these jokers can get dressed in the morning. 

We will "come together" as a people and reject the holy hell out of this administration this Fall and in 2016. 

chuck, what gains are you referring to? 4500+ dead American soldiers? I'm real anxious to hear what we "gained".

Irrespective of all the information and speculation above about the current state of affairs, this nation would not have even entered into the misadventure in Iraq if it had not been for the bogus information about those alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Those in the Congress who voted to authorize this neocon aggression were DECEIVED by the bogus information provided by Bush's sleazy advisors. 

Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

Bush Bush Bush

Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

Bush Bush

'Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush

That about says it Conten, thanks.

chuck knows

 

Hoob, I don't understand you calling out only the Dem's in your post. At least you posted a link so that we could see all those that voted  (roll was called). Several Dem's voted Nay, while all but one Repub voted Yea ! Why are we trying to blame the other guy all the time ? They ALL made a huge mistake IMO.

 

Irrespective of all the information and speculation above about the current state of affairs, this nation would not have even entered into the misadventure in Iraq if it had not been for the bogus information about those alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Those in the Congress who voted to authorize this neocon aggression were DECEIVED by the bogus information provided by Bush's sleazy advisors

==============================

BULL

I guess Bush is at fault, he should have known that a gibbering idiot would follow him as president. It's often said that nature abhors a vacuum, and the Iranians and later the jihadi's decided to use the power vacuum when we bailed out of Iraq. By replacing the U.S. with Iran as their strong ally the al-Maliki government set up the sectarian divisions in Iraq which are a major reason for the collapse of Iraq.

 

Another key component of this mess is Arab Spring inspired revolution in Syria. The U.S. could have gotten involved with the pro-democracy elements before extremist Islamic groups arrived in force. The empty "red line" proclamation didn't help either. With an abundance of fighters and a long border with Iraq, the chaos in Iraq was ensured.

 

 As to what the Obama administration can do, there's not much it can do at the moment. I know that in WW II we reluctantly allied ourselves with the "same difference" Soviet Union be cause we needed each other, but Iran will be a worse ally if we enter this mess. Probably the only thing possible is to make airstrikes on the deserted Iraqi camps and depots to destroy their heavy weapons and ammunition before the insurgents disperse the new goodies.

The US put soldiers into Korea, the military industrial complex won.

The US put soldiers into Viet Nam, the military industrial complex won.

The US put soldiers into Kuwait, the oil industry won.

The US put soldiers into Afghanistan, the military industrial complex is winning.

The US put soldiers into Iraq, the military industrial complex won.

The US promoted the "Arab Spring", the terriorists are winning.

There is a real important lesson here;  If you are going to fight, fight to win.  Kill all of them, they're gonna hate us anyway.

The US elects Barack Hussein Obama, Russia, China, Al Qaeda, the Taliban won. 

And there you have it folks ...

Present administration contributed mightily to this mess.  At France's urging, Obama helped bring down Qaddafi, Now, Libya is a disjointed mess of competing interests -- few of them good.  Europeans urged the same for Syria.  Obama made a few speeches, but did nothing  The secularists fighting the government are now a small faction, while the jehadim are in the majority.  They've carved out several enclaves including the one ISIS has stretching from the Med, thru Syria to a large portion of Iraq.  Iran has sent in several auxiliary battalions (Al Quds) to support the government against ISIS.  Only the Kurds are holding their territory, including one major oilfield, and accepting Christian refugees.   ISIS is so crazy that al Qaeda disavowed them. 

 

Hope they kill each other with religious fervor (except Kurds) and joy.

Perhaps we should allow the Turks to take back some of their old empire, such as Syria and Iraq with the exception of the Kurds. To make up for the Kurds, maybe they would take the Persians.

__________________________________

Erdogan, the Turkish leader, is an Islamist.  Both Persians and Turks have ruled the Arabs and consider them worthy of being serfs and cannon fodder.  Arabs fear both,  What a GD mess.

___________________________________________________

Kermit Roosevelt a progressive, put the Pahlavis in power in Iran. Carter, a progressive, refused to help the Pahlavis, as European progressives sent the Ayatollah to Iran, cheering him on.

 

JFK and LBJ, both progressives, got us into Nam.  .A moderate conservative, Nixon, got us out.

President Truman, a progressive, got us into Korea.  Eisenhower, a moderate conservative, ended the conflict.  Korea was a success story, Unless, you're an extreme leftie who considers North Korea a worker's paradise. 

 

In Ike's farewell address on 17 January 1960, he covered a number of points.

* The rise of an implacable enemy which would result in generations of struggle.

*  The need for a readily available, well armed military, which the US did not support before.

* A warning not to let the military-industrial complex run the show, but be the servant.

* A similar warning against a techno-bureaucracy, that would subvert the constitutional government.

 

And, there you have it.

 

The dems started beating the war drums against iraq before Bush was president, but now try to claim Bush lied to them. All these oh so smart dems were so easily had, call Bush dumb, but still claim they're smart enough to hold office? Sheesh.

JFK and LBJ, both progressives, got us into Nam.  .A moderate conservative, Nixon, got us out.

Nixon's retreat from Viet Nam just happened to occur one month before the election in which McGovern campaigned to get us out of Viet Nam.  Nixon could have got us out four years earlier.

 

Korea was a success story,    In your dreams.

 

Eisenhower signed the treaty that caused us to go to Viet Nam.

 

he dems started beating the war drums against iraq before Bush was president, but now try to claim Bush lied to them. All these oh so smart dems were so easily had, call Bush dumb, but still claim they're smart enough to hold office? Sheesh.

 

In your wildest dreams.  Bush and company destroyed one of the most respected men in America (Colon Powell) by having him give the speech to the UN which was all lies or disinformation.  

Obama got over half the votes each time he ran, Bush didn't, but the repubs were sharp enough to steal one election, so I guess the dems were easily had

___

 

The coup that deposed Mohammed Mossadegh as Iranian leader and placed the Pahlavies in power was indeed engineered by Kermit Roosevelt, but that particular "progressive" was working for the Republican (Eisenhower) administration in 1953 when the coup was accomplished. The Shah was reluctant to embark on the coup promoted by Roosevelt, but was finally persuaded to do so by Roosevelt's insistence that unless Mossadegh was deposed, Iran would go communist or become "another Korea," typical alarmist blithering as in "weapons of mass destruction" or the failed "domino theory" that enmeshed us in Viet Nam.

 

The U.S. role in this travesty set the course of modern history in Iran and ultimately led to the Iranian hostage situation and the takeover of that nation by Shiite radicals.  We installed and supported the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, who repressed, tortured, and imprisoned his political enemies, ultimately being himself deposed and replaced with a Shiite Islamic theocracy, the current breeding ground of our troubles--including nuclear concerns--with Iraq.

 

Contributing to the depraved history of U.S. interaction with Iraq were the tawdry guns-drugs-hostages machinations of that scheming scofflaw, Oliver North, all carried out in the Reagan administration.  That North still is considered something of a hero by elements of the far right testifies to the ignorance and depauperate ethics of the RETROgressives!

The dems started beating the war drums against iraq before Bush was president, but now try to claim Bush lied to them. All these oh so smart dems were so easily had, call Bush dumb, but still claim they're smart enough to hold office? Sheesh.

 

 

 

In your wildest dreams.  Bush and company destroyed one of the most respected men in America (Colon Powell) by having him give the speech to the UN which was all lies or disinformation.  

Obama got over half the votes each time he ran, Bush didn't, but the repubs were sharp enough to steal one election, so I guess the dems were easily had

 

-------------------

So, Bush was president at the same time clinton held office? How in the world could that be true? In my wildest dreams? Seriously? So, you are just going to deny it happened? Just how did Bush "steal" the election? IF the dems don't want to appear as "easily had", they need to man up and stop making the false claim that Bush lied to them, which was impossible since he was not in office, before they beat the war drums. And one more thing to show you have NO idea what you're talking about, what did it have to do with obama? 

Iran had an earlier beef with another Roosevelt:

 

Rezā Shāh appealed to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the basis of the Atlantic Charter:

 

<dl><dd>"…on the basis of the declarations which Your Excellency has made several times regarding the necessity of defending principles of international justice and the right of peoples to liberty. I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression. This incident brings into war a neutral and pacific country which has had no other care than the sa***uarding of tranquillity and the reform of the country." — a letter of 25 August</dd></dl>

However, this plea failed to prompt a response from the US President to prevent the invasion of Iran, as Roosevelt's response shows:

 

<dl><dd>"Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination."</dd></dl>

Roosevelt also reassured the Shah by noting "the statements to the Iranian Government by the British and Soviet Governments that they have no designs on the independence or territorial integrity of Iran". However, in 1945, the Soviets would be responsible for backing two breakaway territories in the north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...iet_invasion_of_Iran

 

And Truman was the first President to get involved in the Viet Nam mess:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...s_in_the_Vietnam_War

• May 1, 1950 — After the capture of Hainan Island from Chinese Nationalist forces by the Chinese People's Liberation Army, President Truman approves $10 million in military assistance for anti-communist efforts in Indochina. The Defense Attaché Office was established in Saigon in May 1950, a formal recognition of Viet Nam (vice French IndoChina). This was the beginning of formal US military personnel assignments in Viet Nam. US Naval, Army and Air Force personnel established their respective attaches at this time.
• September 1950 - Truman sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces.
• Following the outbreak of the Korean War, Truman announces "acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance to the forces of France and the Associated States in Indochina…" and sends 123 non-combat troops to help with supplies to fight against the communist Viet Minh.
• 1951 - Truman authorizes $150 million in French support.

What planet do you live on? Clinton did not send troops to Iraq. 

 

Colin Powell told the Bush administration if you break Iraq, you own it. Well Bush broke it so the Republicans have to own it.

 

Have Republicans forgotten how anyone who opposed this war were smeared and mocked? Have you forgotten what happened to the Dixie Chicks for merely speaking out against it? We were called "unAmerican" "traitors" "wimps" for having the good sense to agree with the rest of the world that this war would be a disaster. We were told to shut up and eat our freedom fries

 

Republicans have very short memories. Could it be that you guys have forgotten all this or could it be that you don't want to remember this? 

 

The Republican party is a political movement based on denial.

 

I believe some folks have selective memories:

 

The Truth
There are several quotes.
Most of them come during a time in the Clinton administration when decisions were being made about action against Saddam Hussein and amid concerns about weapons of mass destruction.

We'll take them one at a time.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"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."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
 
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright. 

"We 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country.  Albright said, "There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq. 
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"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.  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."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

http://truthorfiction.com/rumo...ied.htm#.U5ypZbE26M0

 

 

 

In answer to that Bill Gray like post, I was of the opinion that we bombed Afghanistan for maybe three months and then decided to invaid Iraq.  I thought Bush decided that.  Judging from these posts Slick Willie must have told him to do it.

Smear the Dems all you want. I'll join you in that effort. 

 

At the end of the day those of us who disagreed with the war were proven right. Those foolish enough to think that democracy could flourish in Mesopotamia were proven to be **** fools.

 

The liberals were correct, the conservatives were wrong. The Clintons, Waxman, Albright  are not liberals. Liberals were marching in the streets trying to stop this **** war from occurring. They endured the insults from rednecks questioning their patriotism. They were smeared and belittled by the Fox News crowd.

 

Blame the Dems if it makes you feel superior. It doesn't change the fact that the neo conservative agenda was a complete failure. Wolfowitz, Fief, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice were the architects of this disaster and that's where a majority of the blame lies.

 

Best, I guess everyone is entitled to their own delusions, I think we all act that way. I guess some people would rather check for colon cancer for themselves. Anyway, history will show that getting involved in Iraq was a stupid idea with both major parties having their fingerprints all over the evidence. It might have behooved the Bush administration to have removed Tenet ( Clinton's carried over CIA director) and Cheney (Bush the First's Secretary of Defense) from the discussion and started fresh with newer info if possible and people with a different perspective.

Egotistical people of both parties caused this