Bush Vetos Troop Withdrawl Bill

[Balta1701]

Even still, that whole filibuster thing gets you. Of course, only cowardly traitors would ever use that for anything. Damn obstructionists.

 

Anywho, hopefully the Dems are smart enough to keep up the investigations and make this look more and more like the Republican's war that it is until Nov., 08, and we can elect someone who will put a stop to this disaster. But anyway, placed my first ever call to a Congressman's office today on this.

[kapkomet]

Even still, that whole filibuster thing gets you. Of course, only cowardly traitors would ever use that for anything. Damn obstructionists.

 

Anywho, hopefully the Dems are smart enough to keep up the investigations and make this look more and more like the Republican's war that it is until Nov., 08, and we can elect someone who will put a stop to this disaster. But anyway, placed my first ever call to a Congressman's office today on this.

And this is exactly what the f*** is wrong with you people. It's AMERICA's war, like it or not. This s*** pisses me off and it shows how f***ing shallow your ilk really is. It's about power, not ideas, and it's sick.

 

Most of these f***tard Dems voted FOR the war, remember? And f*** off saying "Bush lied"... they ALL had the same intelligence.

 

I'm sick and goddamn tired of this attitude. It's fine to support (or not support) a policy, but your true feelings are VERY loud in this post. INVESTIGATIONS!!!! WOOOT! NO REAL SOLUTIONS!!!! REMEMBER TO BLAME REPUBLICANS!!!!

 

Please.

[FlaSoxxJim]

There is some cynicism in Balta's post, yes. But This is not America's war, it is the Bush Administration's war of choice.

 

They ALL did NOT have the same intelligence and you know that full well. The Intelligence Congress was not privy to included scores of reports saying that the intel Busho favored, cherrypicked, and embellished were spurious, and that some of the most compelling intel was suspected by some even then to be fraudulent. Congress also as not privy to the opinions of a lot of military strategists who were damn well aware that "flowers and candy" were apparently code words for "foment a sectarian bloodbath" and that plans for stabilizing Iraq after the fall of Saddam were entirely nonexistent.

 

"They all do it" is a cute mantra, right up there with "It's the liberal media's fault" and "Somehow this is the fault of Clinton's Penis." "They had the same intelligence," on the other hand, is utter bull$hit. They had the intelligence that BushCo wanted them to have, and the intelligence that made the best case for going to war whether it was quality intel or not, and the intelligence that painted the most hopelessly optimistic predictions for success to the exclusion of a substantial body of contrary expert views.

 

I wish a whole lot less of Congres was duped, absolutely. Of course, I wish that about the American populace as well.

[kapkomet]

The intelligence was wrong. Everyone in the WORLD's inteligence was wrong. And it's a nice mantra to say "Congress got duped!!! OMG!!!!"... that's utter bulls*** as well.

 

The war TODAY is due to the Bush Administration's pure ineptness to get it right. The Bush Administration is handling this terribly, and they frankly SUCK on just about every issue out there right now.

 

But the mantra of INVESTIGATIONS!!!! GET THEM!!!! KEEP THE SPOTLIGHT OFF OF THE PARTY WITH NO IDEAS!!!!! is just absolutely dead wrong. Period.

[StrangeSox]

The intelligence was wrong. Everyone in the WORLD's inteligence was wrong. And it's a nice mantra to say "Congress got duped!!! OMG!!!!"... that's utter bulls*** as well.

 

And, like was already pointed out, there was evidence and information out there indicating that the intelligence was pure BS. Congress didn't get to see that. Congress was not privy to all of the information that the Executive was. They got to hear and see the intelligence that the Executive wanted them to hear and see.

 

And not every intelligence agency in the world agreed 100% that Saddam had any weapons or was in any way, shape, or form a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Executive.

[EvilMonkey]

And not every intelligence agency in the world agreed 100% that Saddam had any weapons or was in any way, shape, or form a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Executive.

So unless we have 100% confirmation on intelligence from every available resource, we should not act?

 

Let's change your words here a bit to fit a different argument......And not every scientist in the world agreed 100% that global warming is a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Eco-nazis.

[BigSqwert]

The inspectors were let in before we invaded and found nothing. There was no reason to invade.

[Jenksismyhero]

The inspectors were let in before we invaded and found nothing. There was no reason to invade.

 

I don't think it was as cut and dry as this.

 

(a) it's a big country. we found bunkers we didn't know saddam had after we invaded. just because a group of 20 inspectors goes in and looks around doesn't mean they checked every possible place

 

(B) they were never given enough time to complete the job. if i recall correctly saddam waited a long time before he let them in, and when he did he didn't cooperate fully. also the inspectors DID find weapons that were banned after the Gulf War the he said he got rid of but obviously didn't.

 

The left can try to spin this all they want, but the fact was the majority of the world thought he had them. The best intelligence available said he had them. If you want to debate that the Bush admn tried to sell the war on shaky intelligence (my favorite was the mobile missile systems on semi-trucks), ok fine. But the evidence did exist and it was believed by the majority of the international intelligence community at the time. It wasn't fabricated like so many people think.

[BigSqwert]

I don't think it was as cut and dry as this.

 

(a) it's a big country. we found bunkers we didn't know saddam had after we invaded. just because a group of 20 inspectors goes in and looks around doesn't mean they checked every possible place

 

(B) they were never given enough time to complete the job. if i recall correctly saddam waited a long time before he let them in, and when he did he didn't cooperate fully. also the inspectors DID find weapons that were banned after the Gulf War the he said he got rid of but obviously didn't.

 

The left can try to spin this all they want, but the fact was the majority of the world thought he had them. The best intelligence available said he had them. If you want to debate that the Bush admn tried to sell the war on shaky intelligence (my favorite was the mobile missile systems on semi-trucks), ok fine. But the evidence did exist and it was believed by the majority of the international intelligence community at the time. It wasn't fabricated like so many people think.

I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat.

[Texsox]

I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat.

 

Iran and North Korea could have kicked our asses much worse than Iraq.

[Damen]

I don't think it was as cut and dry as this.

 

(a) it's a big country. we found bunkers we didn't know saddam had after we invaded. just because a group of 20 inspectors goes in and looks around doesn't mean they checked every possible place

 

(B) they were never given enough time to complete the job. if i recall correctly saddam waited a long time before he let them in, and when he did he didn't cooperate fully. also the inspectors DID find weapons that were banned after the Gulf War the he said he got rid of but obviously didn't.

 

The left can try to spin this all they want, but the fact was the majority of the world thought he had them. The best intelligence available said he had them. If you want to debate that the Bush admn tried to sell the war on shaky intelligence (my favorite was the mobile missile systems on semi-trucks), ok fine. But the evidence did exist and it was believed by the majority of the international intelligence community at the time. It wasn't fabricated like so many people think.

 

A majority of the world believed there were WMD's stockpiled of some sort. A majority of the world did not subscribe to many of the statements the administration made to exaggerate the threat of Iraq. That is one of many reasons there was such a tremendous discrepancy between the contributions of allies in the first Gulf War and this one.

 

The best intelligence also cast serious doubt on central claims paraded by Bush in the State of the Union and Powell to the UN.

[EvilMonkey]

I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat.

Iraq was attacking us every day up to the invasion by shooting missles at our planes patrolling the northern and southern no-fly zones after the first war. I would have liked to have seen every installation that ever lit an American airplane with its radar blown to pieces during that time, byt you know, Saddam had this nasty habit of putting his AA batteries right in the middle of cities. So every day he attacked and provoked us. He was a threat.

[Balta1701]

And this is exactly what the f*** is wrong with you people. It's AMERICA's war, like it or not. This s*** pisses me off and it shows how f***ing shallow your ilk really is. It's about power, not ideas, and it's sick.

 

Most of these f***tard Dems voted FOR the war, remember? And f*** off saying "Bush lied"... they ALL had the same intelligence.

 

I'm sick and goddamn tired of this attitude. It's fine to support (or not support) a policy, but your true feelings are VERY loud in this post. INVESTIGATIONS!!!! WOOOT! NO REAL SOLUTIONS!!!! REMEMBER TO BLAME REPUBLICANS!!!!

 

Please.

So, sadly, no, to my eyes, this is not America's war. Not in the least, certainly not these days. America has long since decided it doesn't want this war any more. Only a small minority, which just happens to control the White House and a large chunk of the media, still want this war to go on. Every recent piece of data says that America doesn't want this war to go on any more.

 

And beyond that, America was never sold on this fight. America was sold on a war that we actually won; a brief, few week campaign to overthrow Saddam, regardless of the reason. America was not sold a nearly 6 year guerrilla war. America was never asked to plan for that war, America was never asked if it wanted that war. The few of us who said you couldn't have one without the other were cast aside and ignored.

 

And secondly, you know why I think we need to make clear who's fault this is? Because the biggest chunk of those who think this war is the greatest idea ever are the ones who have the power right now. What it is going to take for this debacle to be ended is for those specific people to no longer have power at all. Which means, quite simply, the people who think we need Double-Gitmo and more and more troops in Iraq until Jesus returns must lose. Whether or not its the idiotic Dems in Congress who went along with the war who allowed it to happen or who are allowing it to continue...the dying is not going to stop until these people are out of power. End of story.

[kapkomet]

So, sadly, no, to my eyes, this is not America's war. Not in the least, certainly not these days. America has long since decided it doesn't want this war any more. Only a small minority, which just happens to control the White House and a large chunk of the media, still want this war to go on. Every recent piece of data says that America doesn't want this war to go on any more.

And beyond that, America was never sold on this fight. America was sold on a war that we actually won; a brief, few week campaign to overthrow Saddam, regardless of the reason. America was not sold a nearly 6 year guerrilla war. America was never asked to plan for that war, America was never asked if it wanted that war. The few of us who said you couldn't have one without the other were cast aside and ignored.

 

And secondly, you know why I think we need to make clear who's fault this is? Because the biggest chunk of those who think this war is the greatest idea ever are the ones who have the power right now. What it is going to take for this debacle to be ended is for those specific people to no longer have power at all. Which means, quite simply, the people who think we need Double-Gitmo and more and more troops in Iraq until Jesus returns must lose. Whether or not its the idiotic Dems in Congress who went along with the war who allowed it to happen or who are allowing it to continue...the dying is not going to stop until these people are out of power. End of story.

Point 1. You are flat out wrong. Question: do you want the Iraq war to end? 95% say yes! WOOOOOOOOOOT! DEMS WIN!... GMAB. Question: do you think we should withdrawl immediately from Iraq? That's 50%, AT BEST, and most of the numbers I see are usually about 35% WHEN AN EQUAL # OF PEOPLE ARE ASKED OF EQUAL POLITICAL BACKGROUND, not a bunch of Democrats.

 

Point 2. You know what? I absolutely agree with your point here. And that's part of my beef with this jackass administration. They are so arrogant - to keep things as status quo, but the alternative (leaving as fast as we can) simply is NOT good for America.

 

Point 3. It's NOT THESE people. Let me tell you something. Billy Boy Clinton had the same hard-on for Saddam as BushCo did, but he knew it was suicide politically to do any more then lob missles in there to look like he was tough. It cracks my ass up to hear all you lefties say we need to help in Darfur, and we needed to help in Bosnia for the "benefit of the people", but Saddam, who had killed 1,000,000 of his own people, well, NOOOOOO ... THAT'S DIFFERENT! Whatever. It gets tiresome to see the same old retread about how the Democrats are the beautiful party and they just want what's best for America... yea, what's best if they control government and we become a socialist nation. It's all good then.

[Balta1701]

Point 3. It's NOT THESE people. Let me tell you something. Billy Boy Clinton had the same hard-on for Saddam as BushCo did, but he knew it was suicide politically to do any more then lob missles in there to look like he was tough. It cracks my ass up to hear all you lefties say we need to help in Darfur, and we needed to help in Bosnia for the "benefit of the people", but Saddam, who had killed 1,000,000 of his own people, well, NOOOOOO ... THAT'S DIFFERENT! Whatever. It gets tiresome to see the same old retread about how the Democrats are the beautiful party and they just want what's best for America... yea, what's best if they control government and we become a socialist nation. It's all good then.

So if I opposed the action related to the Kosovar Civil War as well, which I in fact did (I had a couple of Serbian friends in High School and realized that I couldn't win an argument with them over the issue when their response was "why does my family have to be put at risk because of this?), and am very skeptical about the whole concept of humanitarian "War" (as opposed to some sort of intervention to stop a war, which might be the reality in Darfur - something that could be achieved by the appearance rather than the application of force), does that leave me able to make my point? I simply don't think you can improve the world by killing a few hundred thousand people to free people, especially if those folks don't want it.

 

Point 1. You are flat out wrong. Question: do you want the Iraq war to end? 95% say yes! WOOOOOOOOOOT! DEMS WIN!... GMAB. Question: do you think we should withdrawl immediately from Iraq? That's 50%, AT BEST, and most of the numbers I see are usually about 35% WHEN AN EQUAL # OF PEOPLE ARE ASKED OF EQUAL POLITICAL BACKGROUND, not a bunch of Democrats.

That leaves out the 1 other point though...Yes, 35% say there should be an immediate withdrawal. But another 35-40% beyond that say that well maybe there shouldn't be an immediate withdrawal, but there should be firm benchmarks set or an official timeline for when we're withdrawing. Hell, I'll even cite the Fox News poll that says that. Only like 25% of this country wants this war to continue until January 20, 2009/forever, as is currently in the law. And if you simply ask the "Favor/oppose" question, it's 60-65% opposed. This country doesn't want this thing any more. The only question is what the best way out is; immediate withdrawal or something phased with more timelines.

[kapkomet]

So if I opposed the action related to the Kosovar Civil War as well, which I in fact did (I had a couple of Serbian friends in High School and realized that I couldn't win an argument with them over the issue when their response was "why does my family have to be put at risk because of this?), and am very skeptical about the whole concept of humanitarian "War" (as opposed to some sort of intervention to stop a war, which might be the reality in Darfur - something that could be achieved by the appearance rather than the application of force), does that leave me able to make my point? I simply don't think you can improve the world by killing a few hundred thousand people to free people, especially if those folks don't want it.

That leaves out the 1 other point though...Yes, 35% say there should be an immediate withdrawal. But another 35-40% beyond that say that well maybe there shouldn't be an immediate withdrawal, but there should be firm benchmarks set or an official timeline for when we're withdrawing. Hell, I'll even cite the Fox News poll that says that. Only like 25% of this country wants this war to continue until January 20, 2009/forever, as is currently in the law. And if you simply ask the "Favor/oppose" question, it's 60-65% opposed. This country doesn't want this thing any more. The only question is what the best way out is; immediate withdrawal or something phased with more timelines.

I think that we do have to get out of there, and I think that is where BushCo has it flat out wrong... he's let those people flounder way too long by "staying the course"... I think we can put "timelines" on the Iraqi government, but we cannot put timelines on us getting out of there, and there's a HUGE difference between the two. Iraq must take responsibility for its own course at some point.

[Y2HH]

As soon as "statistics" are thrown around by either side of the fence, the arguement becomes pure bulls***.

 

These polls are always so fixed it's not even worthwhile looking at them, nor using them as ammo to argue your point of view on the war.

 

The problem is with most wars it's impossible to tell if the results were successful because there is no alternate timeline to look at. What I mean by this is, if we had done nothing and 30 years later a nuclear bomb goes off in NY smuggled into the country and detonated by Saddam loyalists, people would look back and say wow...both Bush Sr AND his son, GW had the opportunity to get rid of that mad man and did nothing. But since he did do something, we won't be worrying about Saddam loyalists anymore. The point is, neither side knows for sure...they simply act like they know.

 

Yes, yes, I know...die hard dems, you're right, the war was a mistake.

 

Yes, yes, I know...die hard reps, you're right, the war was necessary.

 

Those of us inbetween can probably come to a conclusion that although the war has gotten a tad out of control -- it's war, and only an idiot would assume something like WAR could be "in control" -- but there was probably SOME good that came of this, even with the bad.

 

No matter what way you slice it...war sucks...but sometimes, it's necessary even if unpopular.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Y2HH

[Jenksismyhero]

I still fail to see a reason for invading the country. Iraq was not an imminent threat. Iran and North Korea are more of a threat.

 

Well thats fine, and you can have that opinion. My issue is when people have this opinion and couple it with the 'that bastard Bush created this war out of nothing' argument. This is when revionist history comes to play and we get situations like know where a large chunk of the population thinks Bush created the war and lied to everyone. The fact is he didnt lie and there was evidence. Whether or not that threat justified the war, ok, thats an argument I don't mind having.

 

 

 

Those of us inbetween can probably come to a conclusion that although the war has gotten a tad out of control -- it's war, and only an idiot would assume something like WAR could be "in control" -- but there was probably SOME good that came of this, even with the bad.

 

No matter what way you slice it...war sucks...but sometimes, it's necessary even if unpopular.

 

Agreed. More people need to remember this. I think 24/7 cable news has made this problem (expectations) worse.

[Jenksismyhero]

That leaves out the 1 other point though...Yes, 35% say there should be an immediate withdrawal. But another 35-40% beyond that say that well maybe there shouldn't be an immediate withdrawal, but there should be firm benchmarks set or an official timeline for when we're withdrawing. Hell, I'll even cite the Fox News poll that says that. Only like 25% of this country wants this war to continue until January 20, 2009/forever, as is currently in the law. And if you simply ask the "Favor/oppose" question, it's 60-65% opposed. This country doesn't want this thing any more. The only question is what the best way out is; immediate withdrawal or something phased with more timelines.

 

See this is where I'm glad Congress and Bush 'compromised.' I think a hard date would have been terrible. As the great mind, Elizabeth Hassleback, said the other day (no i don't watch the show, just happened to see the clip of her and the fat one fighting), if you give the other team information, such the exact play you're about to call, that changes the game entirely. They can sit back and wait for it. That's exactly what will happen. They set a date, everyone will calm down until that date and then major planned attacks will occur and someone will try and take control of the country, sorta like Saddam did.

 

I liked the compromise because we dropped the date and instituted benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet. We're finally kicking them in their ass and saying look, we helped you out, its time for you to take control of your people.

 

And I think those polls are also crap. Who wants war? Shouldn't that be like 95% are opposed to war? Who likes the fact that Americans are dying?

[StrangeSox]

So unless we have 100% confirmation on intelligence from every available resource, we should not act?

 

Let's change your words here a bit to fit a different argument......And not every scientist in the world agreed 100% that global warming is a imminent threat. Any dissent, however, was brushed aside, ignored, or crushed by the Eco-nazis.

 

No, I never said that. I just sick of people acting like everyone in the world agreed that Saddam had weapons and was a imminent threat.

 

I don't think it was as cut and dry as this.

 

(a) it's a big country. we found bunkers we didn't know saddam had after we invaded. just because a group of 20 inspectors goes in and looks around doesn't mean they checked every possible place

 

(B) they were never given enough time to complete the job. if i recall correctly saddam waited a long time before he let them in, and when he did he didn't cooperate fully. also the inspectors DID find weapons that were banned after the Gulf War the he said he got rid of but obviously didn't.

 

The left can try to spin this all they want, but the fact was the majority of the world thought he had them. The best intelligence available said he had them. If you want to debate that the Bush admn tried to sell the war on shaky intelligence (my favorite was the mobile missile systems on semi-trucks), ok fine. But the evidence did exist and it was believed by the majority of the international intelligence community at the time. It wasn't fabricated like so many people think.

 

They asked for more time, but Bush said he was going to start bombing.

 

As for the evidence, yeah, it was out there, but as you said, it was all very, very shaky and barely verifiable. There was evidence that contradicted the assertions that he had weapons. There were clear indications that some of the intelligence was just complete garbage.

[Rex Kickass]

See this is where I'm glad Congress and Bush 'compromised.' I think a hard date would have been terrible. As the great mind, Elizabeth Hassleback, said the other day (no i don't watch the show, just happened to see the clip of her and the fat one fighting), if you give the other team information, such the exact play you're about to call, that changes the game entirely. They can sit back and wait for it. That's exactly what will happen. They set a date, everyone will calm down until that date and then major planned attacks will occur and someone will try and take control of the country, sorta like Saddam did.

 

I liked the compromise because we dropped the date and instituted benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet. We're finally kicking them in their ass and saying look, we helped you out, its time for you to take control of your people.

 

And I think those polls are also crap. Who wants war? Shouldn't that be like 95% are opposed to war? Who likes the fact that Americans are dying?

 

Benchmarks without a timetable are meaningless. The only reason the Senate dems caved was so they could get their minimum wage bill passed, and that pisses me off quite a bit.

[NorthSideSox72]

The arguments here seem to pivot around an axis where, at one end, the war was justified by the intelligence, which turned out to be wrong. On the other end, the war was never justifiable and there were no WMD.

 

Except, here's the thing. The reality isn't on that axis at all. The reality, pretty clearly, is that this administration was going to invade Iraq regardless of WMD. WMD happened to be the most politically effective argument to make at the time, to fit their agenda. In case that wasn't clear, look at the lineup of other "reasons" they started dispensing when it became clear there weren't any WMD's. That agenda, right or wrong, was to get a democratic, American influenced foothold in the Middle East. To take the war to them, to take control of the region, and try to scare some regimes straight. And because of 9/11, and the effective capitalization of fear by this government (administration, Congress, et al), the public and even many of our politicians rode the wave to war. And now, because of that weakness that allowed them to be swept away (as well as because of the amazing ineptness of the execution of said war), here we are.

 

Thing is, some people had the courage even at the time to say it was wrong. Not "everyone" in the U.S. thought it was a good idea. 70% support is high, but not astronomical. And sure as heck most other countries who were NOT caught up in the fear wave (read: new red scare) of the time, did NOT support the war. So again, the result is - we're mired in a nightmarish war.

 

Rumsfeld and the other hawks (Cheney et al) who pushed the administration for this war should be #1 on the blame list, followed closely by Bush himself, then Congress. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

This administration, and I mean the entire thing (not just Bush), looks to me like the worst in a long, long time. They were wrong, and we let them be wrong (as the voting public). And now, we've spent a trillion f***ing dollars, killed thousands of our own troops, been responsible for the deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi deaths, and destroyed a lot of valuable international political capital.

 

Can someone tell me the last time our nation f***ed up this badly? I'm going to have to go with the late 19th century, and point to Reconstruction of the South, along with the Indian extermination policy.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The problem here is not that we went to war in the 1st place, it's that we are totally bungling the management of the war. You've all read my rants about that so I won't waste keystrokes writing about it.

[Rex Kickass]

Nuke: You're right.

 

We could have won this war pretty easily, and we could have even made the right case to get into Iraq in the first place. But as the execution of this war shows, priorities have been in wrong places since day one of planning.

[Balta1701]

Nuke: You're right.

 

We could have won this war pretty easily, and we could have even made the right case to get into Iraq in the first place. But as the execution of this war shows, priorities have been in wrong places since day one of planning.

Sadly, I think this is actually incorrect. I think that the idea of launching a humanitiarian war in the middle of this powderkeg of a region was bound to wind up this way. No matter what we did, eventually, there were going to be people out of work and unhappy about it who decided to turn to violence, and eventually it was going to get out of control no matter what happened, IMO. You just can not expect the United States Army to be greeted as liberators and worshipped as freedom-givers in the middle east these days, and that is one of the key flaws.

 

Of course, I can't prove that, and neither can anyone else, because we only have the scenario which actually played out. But I can add that no matter what, it could have and probably should have been pretty obvious that even if this war was a great idea on paper, the people who would be running it were not at all the sort of people who should be trusted with something of this magnitude.