DarrylS

"presidents plan, risky as it was" is as about as close as you will ever get to some type of admission that maybe this while thing is wrong.. do you know for certain that all of the information was presented?? do you know for sure that the information was presented with a certain slant?? Bottom line is do not really know all of these answers, I am not defending the Dems who voted for this conflict.. but there are a lot of assumptions being made here.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

Fogbuster

I stated in a post recently that I opposed military action against Iraq, after 9/11. I even wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to not take this route. I beseeched him to use alternative means to get Saddam to open up Iraq to the world.

We all know what happened: the president made his case to Congress and they went along with him, including the majority of Democrats (Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, etc.), and we went to war to remove Saddam and create a more world-friendly government in Iraq.

Once arms are committed there is no turning back. It must be settled with a success or there will be viewed as a defeat which radicals will attempt to exploit, saying the U.S. is "weak".

Now all these Dems (and some Repubs) who were on board for the commitment to arms are saying they want to cut and run. NO GOOD!! It would be an open invitation for al qaida to come to the U.S. and do 9/11 ten times or a hundred times bigger.

Have you ever heard al qaida, Osama, or any of the radical Islamists agree to a peace-making accord??? How about the Palestinians?? The only thing keeping the relative peace in Israel is a 24/7 military presence and that ugly wall that runs for miles to keep suicide bombers from easy strikes inside Jerusalem. That's it. No serious offers of peace from the Hamas or Fatah ruling parties.

Until we have a solid footing from which to negotiate the over-stoked Islamists will not even consider a peace accord.
Ask the Israelis.


//

wistahpatsfan

That's a total cop-out.(for the kids, that's a 70's phrase - means giving up responsibility by making up an excuse)

Lots of people smelled this out right from the start. The Congress still had their "patriotic" finger in the wind from 9-11 and couldn't stay ahead of the curve, as usual. Their reactions were late and Bush's handlers knew it. Before any of these lazy losers couls figure it out, the 101st were in the Presidential Palace and it was too late. Blame on pulling the stunt goes to Bush and his wierdo friends. Blame on letting it happen goes to COngress 100%.

sdaniels7114

To a certain extent, I'm disappointed in the Dems who supported the war; but if you consider the frenzy the country was in at the time, I've no doubt that those who voted for it did so as a way to cut bait instead of fish. There was too much anger, the citizens weren't thinking rationally, and had the Dems decided to fight at that point, there might very well have not been any Dems left in power. So they took the wise route and chose to keep their heads down and let Bush do what he wanted. It certainly wasn't brave; but it did show common sense in not bashing their heads against an unbreakable brick wall.

The idea being floated now, that this was a bipartisan effort, is exactly why I'm not a Republican. That's just plain sleazy.

mr3putt

Let me be clear that I still hold the Congress responsible for giving Bush the
"keys" to the car by authorizing the War. Politicians by nature vote their poll data and not their concience. The American people were fired up and looking to lay a smackdown on somebody. Bush redirected the rage to Sadaam.

At least Congress now is willing to reexamine the tactical and strategic situation and realize the inevitable.

Once again I will challenge those on the board to counter my postion on redeploying to neighboring countries. It would make far more sense and reduce our exposure to casualties.

Fogbuster

I accept your challenge: redeployment to Kuwait or maybe Turkey or even Saudi would probably be seen as "provocative" by radicals. They would say it is "another U.S. occupation." For that reason it doesn't serve the intended purpose of removing Americans from harm's way, or making the U.S. any more of a welcomed friend. We need to go where we are welcomed by a significant number of people, and I still think there are sufficient such numbers in Iraq.


//

Real World

Don't make excuses for them. It's their job to not be blinded. Those in office are elected by the people for a reason, because they are expected to make the right decisions all of the time. When they don't, they need to be held accountable. Patriotism and faith are not a basis for making a decision. Those are emotional reasons, and emotion, like religion to me, has no placei n government. Decisions should be made because they are right, or wrong, or because you support them. The Senate voted 77-23 for war, the congress 296-133. Why weren't those 23, and 133, not swayed by faith and patriotism? The vote wasn't unanimous, so accountability has to be applied.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

Yes, they deserve a chunk of the blame, so long as you hold GW largely accountable. This is his puppy. Like I referenced before, GW is the bank robber, and those who voted for war are getaway car drivers.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

wistahpatsfan

If by "re-deployment" you mean, leaving Iraq, invading western Pakistan and pumping Afghanistan to get AQ and OBL, I'm all for it. Nexy we go to KofSA, march into Mecca, plant and activate a nuclear weapon, set it on standby and warn AQ that the next terrorist activity will be answered with the destruction of Mecca. While we're there, the entire "Royal" family is arrested, tried, and executed for their roles in the attacks on 9-11....yeah, redeployment sounds good.

What...too late for that?

Real World

Disgusting. So your saying they played along for selfish, political reasons, knowing full well that a war they disapproved of was going to start, which would undoubtedly mean thousands would die? They did this because they wanted to save their political party's future prospects? Is that what your saying?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897