Democrats blow with the wind, purely for politics, no matter how much damage they do, no matter how many lies it takes them. Watch and listen to Democrats on this "immoral, illegal, unjust war."

<link>

Actually most Americans have concluded that the Iraq war is not justified. Remember WMDs? A pack of lies.

ClaimsAdjuster:

Actually most Americans have concluded that the Iraq war is not justified. Remember WMDs? A pack of lies.

In fact, one cannot commence a war and then precipitately withdraw because Democrats repeat their Big Lie over and over and over and over for purely partisan purposes, even as Democrats CLAIM to "support the troops." Berkeley just kicked the U.S. Marine Corps out of town. Such is Democrat "support" for our brave troops.

Bill Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs.

Ted Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs.

John Kerry said "If you don't believe Iraq has WMDs, don't vote for me" in 2000.

Most important of all, Saddam Hussein retained all his scientists who were capable of reconstituting WMDs at any time, which he fully intended to do.

Try dealing with reality instead of the Democrat Talking Points for a change.

Too bad it wasn't a Democrat that decided to take America to war in Iraq...

The Bush administration hyped and lied about a non-existent WMD threat in order to gain public support for an unjustfied invasion. You did not address that point but instead attempted to spread the blame around.

It is really irrelevant if some Democratic party politicians also believed, at some point in the past, that Iraq still might have had some chem-bio weapons. After all, 70% of the US population bought the Bush disinformation campaign before the invasion - even Fred Kaplan.

Ted Kennedy, one of the pols you mentioned, voted against giving Bush war making power. Apparently he was not convinced that Iraq posed a credible threat to the US.

Many countries have WMD's.

Many Countries have corrupt, dangerous and murderous dictators.

Do we invade each of these countries in the name of freedom? How do we decide which ones to invade? Which dictators to over through?

There were obviously more reasons then WMDs or Saddam.

There is a very large difference in supporting our troops and supporting a president and his policies.

Almost every Democrat who made statement expressing belief in Saddam having or working to have WMD added the caveat that they did not favor a premptive war. Bus promised "War is my last option.' That obviously wasn't true. Additionally Bush's claim the 9/11 Comission found no evidence of data mainupulaiton leaves out that although the Comission said that they also said they did not investigate the issue either and wanted to do that in the sceond part of the investigation. The Repubicans and the administration then stonewalled that part of the investigation.

Instead of this propaganda piece why can't Republicans just admit the war was at least a mistake, a very costly and illegal one at that.

It is quite telling that ritewingers have found the breath to reassert the moral argument for the Iraq invasion and occupation. After the official propaganda that "the surge is working" and things "have turned around" in Iraq, they now believe they can continue in their imperiousness and irreproach.

But the original point of Iraq was WMDs were just the pretext. The REAL objectives of war on Iraq were multifaceted.

1) Geo Strategic. The brainchild of the War of Iraq was Paul Wolfowitz and the PNAC, the Neo Con think tank with offices in the American Enterprise Institute. To make America the predominant power of the 21st century, Neo Cons advocated invasion and occupation of Iraq to demostrate America global primacy and strategically place America at the heart of the world's most significant energy reserves. This preemptive, "hot" action was designed to force any nation which considered preemptive aggression of their own to prefer defensive, "cold" action, ecspecially China & Russia.

2)Ideological. According to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, the Neo Con adherents sought opportunities to implement their ideological economic and political policies (deregulation, privatization, globalization) and the instability of war both in Iraq, the Middle East, and America being at war served as valuable opportunities to practice their ideals. Thus, Rumsfeld, a Neo Con and PNACer, remarked on 9/10/01 to wage war on the Pentagon, essentially redefined America's military industry by 'privatizing' and incorporating private contractors into every facet of DoD thought.

3)Economic. There is no doubt that the War with Iraq has served as an economic boost for the American economy. Nearly a trillion dollars of US tax dollars have found new ways to be spent regarding Iraq. This age old economic tactic has served to enrich the American military industry and the new 'nationbuilding' industry (eg. Halliburton) immeasurably and likely will continue for years to come. Meanwhile, Bush's latest budget proposals of downsizing terrible government spending, like Medicare and Medicaid and free lunchs for poor kids, represent quintessential Neo Con 'privatization' measures that eradicate all aspects of the federal expenditures except military and intelligence, allowing for the states and private sector to pick up the bill, literally.

4) Domestic politics. The Neo Cons in the Bush admin have manipulated the War on Terror and the War in Iraq to Bush's advantages by forcing political opposition on the defensive and reactionary regarding nearly all of their Neo Con ideological strategies. Just by exclaiming 'the terrorist's win' and 'support the troops', almost all political opposition has been paralyzed up until the 2006 election. Even with a Democratic led Congress, the GOP continue to use their war rhetoric to weaken Democrats and shape the entire political field in favor of Neo Conism, with massive federal spending on intel and military. Also important during the Bush admins have been the Neo Con agenda to further empower the executive body and to push their powers far beyond the boundaries and precedents. This has effectively paralyzed both the judicial and legislative bodies from thoroughly checking and balancing the executive body on the most significant of controversial measures. So Bush has effectively invited torture, domestic spying, extraordinary renditions, extrajudicial imprisonment, even assasination, and covert infiltration.

Thus, the Neo Cons have set up Iran to serve as the next pretext for the coming 50 years.BTW, it is a phallacy that Bush's War of Iraq is NOW successful. There are still 4 million displaced Iraqis, almost 2.5 million who left the country. Entire cities have been ethnically cleansed, meaning 10s of 1000s of acts of injustice have been force upon people. Iraqi infrastructure remains incapable of basic electricity throughout the day. There is no true economic stability. Corruption is widespread. The US forces have just succeeded in bribing enough leaders to betray and conspire against their brethren in the classic Divide and Conquer strategy.

So ritewingers have so much to be held accountable for, including allowing poor American kids to go hungry.

wayhey1:

Too bad it wasn't a Democrat that decided to take America to war in Iraq...

You seem to have forgotten that Bill "loathing the military" Clinton took us to war in Bosnia. But then again, the Bosnians were white. Clinton didn't give a damn about the black Rwandans massacred in the Rwandan Genocide.

I forgot, did Clinton find any WMDs in Bosnia?

I am sure that Republics like you, who whined so much about the Balkan intervention despite the fact that not a single American soldier lost his life, would have backed Clinton all the way had he sent troops to Rwanda.

ClaimsAdjuster:

I am sure that Republics like you, who whined so much about the Balkan intervention despite the fact that not a single American soldier lost his life, would have backed Clinton all the way had he sent troops to Rwanda.

Like the typical liberal that you are, you begin with a false premise, and then you conclude with a worthless, baseless conclusion.

First, you cannot produce a fraction of the documentation to back up Republic(ans) objecting to Americans invading Bosnia as there is on liberal fascists backing up the terrorists in Iraq. Not a fraction.

Given your wildly dishonest premise, you then lie that Republic(ans) would have condemned Clinton for saving 800,000 Rwandans. Why would we be standing up for their cause now? That, and you, make no sense. Typical of liberals.

In the first place, the United (sic) Nations is worthless. Their military (sick) is good only for raping and plundering.

As Serb troops converged on a United Nations safe town, the UN troops did nothing as Serbs removed men and boys under U.N. safeguard and drove them to a remote site for mass murder.

I credit Clinton for doing something there.
I just wonder why cowardly liberals don't apply the same standard to Clinton as they do to Bush. THAT is my point.

Bush saved many more Iraqis than Clinton saved Bosnians. Many, many more.

Saddam Hussein "killed five to seven million Iraqis, the majority of them Shiites." - National Geographic magazine, June 2004

He'd be in power today, butchering still, if you had your evil way.

CaliforniaDreamin:

First, you cannot produce a fraction of the documentation to back up Republic(ans) objecting to Americans invading Bosnia ...

Oh, yeah? Read and weep:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News,

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)