Pabster admitted defeat when he posted the :roll: It's what he does when he has nothing to counter. It's his way of saying F you, you win.
Pabster admitted defeat when he posted the :roll: It's what he does when he has nothing to counter. It's his way of saying F you, you win.
I'm sure that you can show me where that policy was to be carried out by invasion. Please provide a link to it for me...mmmkay.
Let's take a look at John F. Kerry's own words:
"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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
Please note the dates as well. Kerry was fully on-board with regime change in Iraq and using force to accomplish it.
What? You can't think? His post was perfectly rational. 1. Give oath to protect Constitution 2. Work to subvert the Constitution 3. Be tried for treason
That is a perfectly rational argument. How about you challenging the reasoning if you don't agree, turkey!
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
I'm sorry, but IMO, anyone who voted for spending for the war, supported the war. Again, that may be an opinionated statement, but I stand by it, and I will always respect those who voted against the spending, againt the war. They were right to do so, and those on the other side did nothing but aid this idiotic president in his idiotic adventures.
Integrity is about doing the right thing especially when it isn't very popular to do so. I will NOT vote for anyone in 2008 that supported the war in Iraq, or voted for spending for the war.
Further, Hillary voted in favor of sanctions against Iran. This is just disgusting. We cannot be a tyrant to the rest of the world, not without expecting the backlash that comes with it, like 9/11.
We wonder why the rest of the world hates us. We are the biggest hypocrite on the block thanks to the imperialistic Republicans, and the gutless Democrats who would rather coward away with fear of being perceived as unpatriotic, rather than stand up and show some integrity.
There is NO bigger slap in the face to the brave men and women who sign up to defend this great country only to get shipped out to attack someone else's.
The American people sadly give in to the fears thrown at them from the two parties, whether it be terrorism, or global warming, when the real, imminent danger to this country are the two parties, right here in Washington, DC.
Thank you, PJ for another wonderfully IRrational post that fails to address the crimes committed by your TRAITOR IN CHIEF. Are you really that stupid, or are you actively participating in their MURDER and TREASON? :shocked:
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Mr Clinton does not hold an office, was not involved with the planning or execution of the Iraq war. Why are you guys excited about what he said about it?
Originally posted by: Harvey
The answer is simple -- Impeach Clinton and Bush for their lies. Then, try both of them for their crimes...
Wait a minute... Bill was already tried, convicted and sentenced for purjury. Time to try Bush, Cheney, and the rest of their criminal cabal for their crimes.
As of 11/29/07 10:51 am EDT, 3879 American troops have died and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life in their war of LIES.
The Bushwhackos should be tried for MURDER of each and every one of those dead Americans.
In their oaths of office, they swore to uphold the U.S. Consitution. Instead, they have systematically shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under that Constitution.
They should be tried for TREASON for those crimes.
And if you're still pissed at Bill, punish him by not voting for Hillary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPXpc5N6Kg
The legislature voted to give Bush the threat of war to strengthen his hand in demanding Iraq reopen inspections. It was a vote for leverage, not a vote for war, except they voted to give that leverage to a Disaster who went right ahead and went to war without trying to get the inspectors back in. The Democrats were fools to vote to hand a bigger fool a dangerous tool but they did so for two reasons in my opinion. They are cowards who knew they would be called traitors if they didn't support the President and they are fools because they believe that a threat of violence in Iraq would accomplish something other than disaster.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
If any of this revisionist history "I voted yes but didn't intend or support him taking us to war" stuff was true we'd have seen somebody say so right after GWB invaded.
If your "yes" vote was really a "no" vote, you shoulda complained right after the invasion.
Nobody said sh!t. (Other than trying to out-do the next guy in supporting the war and opposing Saddam as a bad guy. Everybody, Dems included, were beating their chests acting tough.)
What if things continue to improve in Iraq? I imagine by next year all those "my yes vote was really a no vote" will turn, Kerryesque fashion, into "my yes vote was really a yes vote along".
Fern j
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Doesn't matter to me. She voted to give that idiot the money he needed to go to war. IMO, she is no better than those who financially supported the people who attacked us on 9/11.
And her voting in favor of sanctions against Iran just tells me she hasn't learned one damn thing since we stepped foot in Iraq.
The dems were NOT duped. They made a political calculation with the lives of american soldiers. That's the sad truth. They are no better than bush at using american lives for political gain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter