Guess who also wanted a president to fail?; - Page 2

cnredd · #11 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You're not understanding me.
I am NOT faulting how the war was initiated. People who do fault the mechanism for declaring war are wrong, IMO.
Bush is not a "war criminal".

My point is that Bush HIMSELF said that the major impetus for starting the war was WMDs.
When those are found to be missing, the REASON for why Congress and the nation initially gave support are shown to be false.

No...no...no...no..

F*CK NO!!!!!!

Read the DAMN resolution and stop revising history...

Here are the NON-WMD-related statements...

Quote:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

You're intentionally pretending NONE of this text meant sh*t...

Just keep saying "WMD" long enough and people will start to believe it...

Fact - Iraqi broke more than a dozen UN resolutions
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - Hussein threw inspectors out on 2 occasions
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - The Iraqi regime attempted to assassinate a former US president
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - Iraq has attempted to shoot down international airplanes defending the No-Fly Zone
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - The Iraqi regime has murder hundreds of thousands of it's own people
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - The Iraqi regime have attacked multiple countries and gassed both enemy and it's own citizens
foundit - "WMD"
Fact - The Iraqi regime was paying off families of terrorists
foundit - "WMD"

Rinse...repeat....

foundit66 · #12 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

No...no...no...no..
F*CK NO!!!!!!
Read the DAMN resolution and stop revising history...

Here are the NON-WMD-related statements...
You're intentionally pretending NONE of this text meant sh*t...

People keep trying to ignore the MAIN REASON for why we went to war with Iraq.
And by "we", I mean the American people.
The reasons WHY Bush got the votes in the first place.

THAT was the WMDs.
Now I have no doubt that there were a variety of things INCLUDED in the resolution that were true.
But they were NOT ENOUGH to justify going to war in the minds of the American people.
And what's more, BUSH KNEW THAT.

WHY didn't Bush push the issue on THOSE fronts?
WHY were the WMDs and the "anthrax" and "nuclear weapons" ideals so important???

What you're doing is like having Bush sell a car that he claims will go 120 MPH and go from 0-60MPH in 4 seconds.
And when the customer gets it off the lot, he finds out it tops out at 50 MPH, and takes a minute to reach that.

And along comes the Republicans trying to insist:
"Well, the car is yellow, isn't it? It has automatic windows, doesn't it? It has airbags, doesn't it? This car has previously won some amazing races, hasn't it?"
Except you don't want to admit that the car WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BOUGHT if it weren't for the "120 MPH / 0-60MPH" claims, which were false.
And now that the American people DO NOT WANT the car because of the false advertising, you want to insist that they should like it anyways...

And the really sad part of all this?
IT IS NOT JUST ME who is noting that they would not have bought the car if the truth had been known.

So I can "read" that all I want to.
I can tell you "Yes. The car is yellow and has automatic windows and airbags. The car did win those previous races."
But NO. I WOULD NOT buy the car JUST for those reasons!
And that ain't just me...

saltwn · #13 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Guess who also wanted a president to fail?

The only silver lining to this administration is watching the Democratc Party wring their own necks twisting 180 degrees on everything they did during the last administration...

Remember when "up" was 'down" snd "east" was "west"?...

"2006 poll from Fox News "

My comment was going to be "Where the hell do they come up with these figures?!"
But I don't have to ask that question, because I re-read your post and noticed the "source".

This is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know anyone personally of any party affiliation who wants to see any President fail.
If some talk show host shot himself in the foot shooting his mouth off you gotta figure STATISTICALLY anyone who TALKS FOR A LIVING is going to say something brilliant and something ridiculous in the course of 10 years or however long Brush has been popular.
The worrisome thing here is why so many good folks like yourself spend so much time trying to defend the guy? He gets paid. He'll be O.K. Trust me on this.

pjohns · #14 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 09:57 PM

There is an enormous difference between one's hoping that a leftist agenda (as appears to animate President Obama) fails, and one's hoping that the president himself fails. The latter appears hopelessly petty; even, perhaps, a bit unpatriotic. (To hope that the president fails, out of some personal animus, seems tantamount to one's hoping that America fails.) But the former strikes me as quite reasonable. Why after all, should a conservative hope that democratic socialism in America meets with some (apparent) short-term success, when the long-term consequences are almost certain to be disastrous?

Rush L · #15 (**permalink**) 03-09-2009, 11:03 PM

So foundit, did you support our Iraq incursion based on WMD? You should read, "Brighter Than a Bagdad Sun". It was written befor the W. era and gives credit to Clinton so its got to be true.

Michael1 · #16 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

I grow tired of that word "socialism".
It is inaccurately used just wayyyy too many times.

It's the lastest iteration in the Republican scare machine.
First, people who didn't agree with violating civil rights or war in Iraq were "terrorist sympathizers".
Now, people who want to shore up the fundamental structure, instead of just letting the whole building collapse, are "socialists".

Increasing the size and scope of government in the manner Obama plans is socialism, whether you like the word or not. Don't you understand the difference between European style socialist democracies and ours?

Quote:

I guess Obama should have come into office, snapped his fingers, and with no $$$ spent he should have fixed the economy.
And when he doesn't, all those job losses and economic melt-downs which started under Bush are all starting to be laid at the feet of the Democrats for responsibility...

What you fail to understand is that no one is blaming Obama for what happened before he got there, it's just that plenty of people for very good reasons have major issues with his 'solution'.

Quote:

Yeah.
There it is...
The irrational attempt to blame Democrats for the current problems, ignoring how the fire clearly started BEFORE the Democrats even started any of this recovery attempt.

I guess that's been the Republican attempt all along. Keep insisting that the problem is less than it is.
And now that we've got a Democrat at the helm, insist that problems that have been popping up long before Democrats started the recovery.
Obama's been in office 48 days now? Time to blame everything on him, right?

How did you possibly get that from me saying "When you're busy trying to Europeanize America, who cares how many people's lives will be shattered in the process???" ???

I state that Obama's 'solution' will lead to a longer recession and possible Depression, like FDR's solution did, and you say I'm blaming Obama for everything in the past? Completely illogical.

Quote:

People's lives were being shattered by this economic melt-down LONG BEFORE Obama took office.
But I guess for you, instead of pointing out leadership to solve it, you can insist on using it for blame....

Here's the solution. Stop repeal the dumb ass stimulus bill and stop considering this recession the perfect opportunity to grow the size and scope of government. Incentivize the private sector, don't just make bigger government. Don't blow $1,000,000,000,000 or whatever it was on stuff we don't need. Don't bail out failed businesses, let them fail (and yes, Bush was wrong on bailing out failed banks and auto-makers too).

Quote:

And you're not failing to take advantage of a crisis, are you?
You're obviously trying to blame Democrats for it...

Nope, don't see how you get that at all. I simply don't believe that the big four (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, & The Ballerina) are even bothering to try help the economy. They're taking advantage of the recession to grow the size of government.

When the Keynesian solution doesn't work, it won't matter. When government grows and becomes entrenched it's almost impossible to wean people from their entitlement programs. Socialized health care is so close I can taste it, and pardon me ... I just threw up a little in my mouth.

foundit66 · #17 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rush L

So foundit, did you support our Iraq incursion based on WMD?

That's like asking "Would you invest in Madoff's recommendations based on him being a proven investor?"
Ignoring the Ponzi scheme...

If Saddam had WMDs, I would support removing them.

Cheney had some great comments about Iraq. Except they happened back in 1992...

Quote:

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?" Cheney said then in response to a question.
"And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

About 146 Americans were killed in the Gulf War. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Going to Baghdad, Cheney said in 1992, would require a much different approach militarily than fighting in the open desert outside the capital, a type of warfare that U.S. troops were not familiar, or comfortable fighting.

"All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques," Cheney said.

"Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

Cheney changed his view on Iraq

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rush L

You should read, "Brighter Than a Bagdad Sun". It was written befor the W. era and gives credit to Clinton so its got to be true.

You assume wayyyyy too much about people based on political leanings.
Clinton's capacity for dishonesty was shown in his *I did not have sex with that woman* claim, just like W's capacity for dishonesty was shown in his *America does not torture* claim.

foundit66 · #18 (**permalink**) 03-10-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote: