Hillary kinda sorta back tracks on her Iraq vote

[Jhhnn]

You don't quite get the point, ntdz.

"What's the reason?"

Go with the obvious- that the Neocons are delusional rightwing militarists seeking empire. It's what they've told us all along, in black and white, in speeches and in the pronouncements of their talking heads. It just doesn't seem that way when they're exploiting America's fears and pride.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

It wasn't all that long ago that Democrats and liberals were said to be out of touch with "the real America," which was defined as encompassing the states that voted for President Bush in 2004, including the entire South. Democrats seemed to accept this definition of reality, and they struggled -- often looking ridiculous in the process -- to become fluent in NASCAR talk and to discuss religion with the inflections of a white Southern evangelicalism foreign to so many of them.

Now the conventional wisdom sees Republicans in danger of becoming merely a Southern regional party. Isn't it amazing how quickly the supposedly "real America" was transformed into a besieged conservative enclave out of touch with the rest of the country? Now religious moderates and liberals are speaking in their own tongues, and the free-thinking, down-to-earth citizens in the Rocky Mountain states are, in large numbers, fed up with right-wing ideology

This conventional wisdom construct is a product of the beltway media and nothing more.

I remember wondering how a blow job turned into an impeachment. This was accomplished by the gotcha press.

Those on the right will say that this is a sign of media bias, but that's a ridiculous argument. Ask Howard Dean--whom the press treated like a slipup slot machine--if the press only focuses its gotcha guns on the right. The truth is, the press has simply lost its sense of purpose. There are too few members of the Fourth Estate who understand the need to help Americans to make the important choices citizens must make in a democracy by giving their stories context; by discussing the ideas which drive (or should drive) our political debate; and, yes, by crying bullshit when necessary.

The fourth estate is not in the business of assisting Americans in making important choices. The business is creating the choices (usually boiled down to just two) between the romantic winner or the pitiful loser. Just look at the difference in which McCain and Howard Dean are portrayed. Policy discussions are quickly turned into ridiculous food fights that are of absolutely no substance.

Crying bullshit, I think, must be a rallying cry. If the fourth estate is to ever have any meaning again.

So long as the media attempts to parse what Bush did, or did not, say, or worse, what he says about what he said, the further they sink into the categories and environment of Bush's propaganda. They have become involved in a conversation the terms of which are set by Bush.

They might begin their own conversation, grounded in their own cognitive faculties.

A more appropriate question for Bush would extend the line of thought of the BBC reporter of last week: "Mr. Bush, so long as you continue to use language suggesting victory or success, can you convince the nation that you are not still in a state of denial about the situation in Iraq?"

Follow up: "Mr. Bush, what do you intend to do to persuade the American people that you are not in a state of denial about the central issue facing the nation?"

Follow up #2: "Mr. Bush, is there any reason for anyone to believe that a White House in a state of denial about the situation in Iraq can formulate any useful or effective strategy for that conflict?"

A sentient 8th grader could formulate these questions.

Meanwhile, La Hillary has said she's for a "surge" -- whatever that means -- so long as it contributes to the "stability of the Middle East", and it's reported that she opposes a Surge--WhateverThatMeans, whereas Harry Reid says he'd support a Surge--WhateverThatMeans so long as it is part of a withdrawl plan and operation, and he repeatedly clarified his remarks to make it perfectly plain what he means, and it is reported that he favors a Surge--WhateverThatMeans.

Can the Big Important Media be any worse? Of course it can. However the kinds of OppositeLand reportage and headline writing and opining that's been going on recently (oh, at least the last decade or so) represents a fully decadent and corrupt Big Important Media institution -- which realistically is not redeemable from the outside. Corporate consolidation is part of the problem, of course, and it has vastly exacerbated inherent tendencies toward sucking up to power -- and exercising power for corporate ends not public interest. As the Institution becomes more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, the Media's ability to function as the Fourth Estate evaporates.

Except on the margins. Because we still do have a Free Press (and members of Congress who want to eliminate any hint of it) on the Internets and in print (very occasionally on television). The Insitutional Media has demonstrated over and over and over again that it cannot -- and absolutely will not -- function in the Public Interest except by accident.

The Marginal Media -- Internet blogs, political magazines, teevee/radio/internets outlets , on and on and on -- are filling the gaps in coverage and correcting the Mountain of Errors spewed by Institutional Media. It's not enough, but it is growing exponentially.

At some point, the Public, fed up with Pravda-esque Truthiness from the fully decadent and corrupt Insititutional Media will simply tune it out, much like the citizens of the Soviet Union did with their own mass media propaganda back in the day. Whereas it was difficult to find an alternative in the Soviet Union, it's easy to find alternatives here.

The media has to stay focused on the important questions.

Did Miss USA kiss Miss teen USA?

Are their pictures?

Was their tounge?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Can't make sense of their motives? That's because you're subconsciously seeking rational justification where there isn't any. They're very much Militaristic Far Rightwing Authoritarians. Accept that, and everything clicks into place.

Even the most meglomaniacal of authoritarians have strategic intentions beyond provoking and fighting wars.

I hate to bring up the Hitler analogy because it gets thrown around here so often, but let's look at Germany's preemptive wars against just about everyone at the outset of WW2. Hitler had a fairly specific agenda, with supporting intentions, behind his blitzkrieg invasions of Poland, Belgium, Holland and France. Where he derailed the Nazi war effort, and not learning the lessons of Napoleon, was to invade Russia/the Soviet Union. Had Hitler maintained a one front war, the Nazis would probably still rule much of Europe to this day.

The NeoCon philosophy may very well be militant and authoritarian, but having that worldview does not necessitate a march to war without specific goals and objectives.

What do you think his reason was? To give Haliburton something to do? To give a shot in the arm to a big portion of the defense industry? To create instability in the oil market? Insanity? All of the above? Or do you still buy the BS that he really thought they had WMD's? LOL at you if you do.

Here is my theory. Consistent with some of your contentions about the NeoCon strategy, I believe that the Bush Administration sought quite simply to establish a permanent American presence in the Middle East by provoking a war on the home turf of Islamic militance. That if American forces were in their backyard, groups like Al Quaida would be forced to focus on the local threat, thereby reducing their ability to project violence outside of the Middle East. Similarly, by making the WoT a conventional war, it would force much of the Al Quaida network to expose itself, and therefore become easily identified and eliminated targets.

We chose Iraq because world opinion was already stacked against Saddam...he was a tyrant and a royal pain in the ass...the WMD argument was all smoke and mirrors such that American could topple Saddam in his already weakened state, and establish a base of operations at the heart of our militant Islamic enemy.

The mistakes made by the Bush Administration were to not send enough troops to do the job, pursue this path without international support, and chose to dismantle the Iraqi military machine...which quite honestly, would have proven quite useful in maintaining order after the invation...hell, even the Allies put the German war machine to good use at the end of WW2.

This theory has nothing to do with apologizing for Bush, nor is it a blind get out of jail free card for the Bush Administration...however, I think it is a more reasonable theory compared to the oil, Halliburton and Bush daddy issues theories that some of you seem to support.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Can't make sense of their motives? That's because you're subconsciously seeking rational justification where there isn't any. They're very much Militaristic Far Rightwing Authoritarians. Accept that, and everything clicks into place.

Even the most meglomaniacal of authoritarians have strategic intentions beyond provoking and fighting wars.

I hate to bring up the Hitler analogy because it gets thrown around here so often, but let's look at Germany's preemptive wars against just about everyone at the outset of WW2. Hitler had a fairly specific agenda, with supporting intentions, behind his blitzkrieg invasions of Poland, Belgium, Holland and France. Where he derailed the Nazi war effort, and not learning the lessons of Napoleon, was to invade Russia/the Soviet Union. Had Hitler maintained a one front war, the Nazis would probably still rule much of Europe to this day.

The NeoCon philosophy may very well be militant and authoritarian, but having that worldview does not necessitate a march to war without specific goals and objectives.

What do you think his reason was? To give Haliburton something to do? To give a shot in the arm to a big portion of the defense industry? To create instability in the oil market? Insanity? All of the above? Or do you still buy the BS that he really thought they had WMD's? LOL at you if you do.

Here is my theory. Consistent with some of your contentions about the NeoCon strategy, I believe that the Bush Administration sought quite simply to establish a permanent American presence in the Middle East by provoking a war on the home turf of Islamic militance. That if American forces were in their backyard, groups like Al Quaida would be forced to focus on the local threat, thereby reducing their ability to project violence outside of the Middle East. Similarly, by making the WoT a conventional war, it would force much of the Al Quaida network to expose itself, and therefore become easily identified and eliminated targets.

We chose Iraq because world opinion was already stacked against Saddam...he was a tyrant and a royal pain in the ass...the WMD argument was all smoke and mirrors such that American could topple Saddam in his already weakened state, and establish a base of operations at the heart of our militant Islamic enemy.

Hold it right there. This si why I say you are a Bush apologist. We chose Iraq?? No, Bush and Company chose Iraq. Any fool with a level head can see that we already had a presense in the ME by pccupying Afghanistan and the world wasn't condeming us for attacking them.

The mistakes made by the Bush Administration were to not send enough troops to do the job, pursue this path without international support, and chose to dismantle the Iraqi military machine...which quite honestly, would have proven quite useful in maintaining order after the invation...hell, even the Allies put the German war machine to good use at the end of WW2.

This theory has nothing to do with apologizing for Bush, nor is it a blind get out of jail free card for the Bush Administration...however, I think it is a more reasonable theory compared to the oil, Halliburton and Bush daddy issues theories that some of you seem to support.

No, you are apologizing for Bush incompetance. Plain and simple. Just because you say you aren't giving him a "get out of jail card" doesn't mean you can't make excuses for him.

 

[Narmer]

What's wrong with her telling the truth? Damned if you do; damned if you don't I guess.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hold it right there. This si why I say you are a Bush apologist. We chose Iraq?? No, Bush and Company chose Iraq. Any fool with a level head can see that we already had a presense in the ME by pccupying Afghanistan and the world wasn't condeming us for attacking them.

Quite simple...our victory in Afghanistan happened almost too quickly, with the Taliban and other militant Islamic groups having an opportunity to fade away, ready to strike another day. By going into Iraq, we essentially forced that network to engage on another front. Granted, I don't think it was a smart decision strategically, as we perhaps got more then what we expected in terms of resistance...that, and I don't think the policy makers took into consideration the factional entities in Iraq such that we would have to contend with a civil war on top of Islamic militants...nor did we expect the hold outs of Saddam'r regime to present such an effective insurgent threat.

No, you are apologizing for Bush incompetance. Plain and simple. Just because you say you aren't giving him a "get out of jail card" doesn't mean you can't make excuses for him.

I'll say it again...pointing out someone's incompetence is in no way apologizing for their behavior...there is a distinct difference between attempting to frame a situation, and understanding the "why", versus accepting and by extention forgiving utter failure.

The problem is, that many of you dismiss as apologists anyone who doesn't agree with your contentions against the Bush Administration...you are certainly entitled to that opinion, as I am of my opinion...but labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as an apologist is lazy, and quite honestly not that much different from the underhanded tactics that many of you criticize the NeoCons of using come election time...attack the messenger, and not the message.

And quite honestly, despite all of the arguments and hand waving I have read on this forum about the Bush Administration, very few have been able to articulate a reasonable theory as to why the NeoCons pushed for a war in Iraq.

We all understand that the WMD argument was a false pretense for going in...we all know the spin surrounding our operations there since the invasion commenced...what we don't understand, and we may never know, is "why Iraq."

Oil, a Bush family grudge against Saddam and Hallburton ties are the convenient answers...but I don't agree they are the correct ones.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Link

I'll spare you the entire article.

This morning on NBC's "Today" show, Sen. Clinton was asked about her 2002 vote and offered a slightly evolved answer. "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote," she said in her usual refrain before adding, "and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

She's changing her usual answer to that question. The first half is her normal answer. But now she's adding to it. Cautiously. I wonder how far she'll let this position evolve. She needs to shore up the extreme left for the nomination and it's no secret that they're pissed at her stance on Iraq to this date. A sudden switch would give her the flip-flop label that sunk Kerry in '04. But a subtle, gradual slide over time might work out for her considering the party's desire to nominate her.

This was a very tactical response that she gave. Almost like she's feeling her way along... floating a trial balloon, looking for a reaction. She's been very consistant with her answer to this specific question. I don't know that it's anything to write home about just yet but it will be interesting to see how her answer to this question will morph in the future.

So, if you were a Congressman in 2003 and you were presented a bunch of lies, half-truths, and obfuscated realities and you voted for AUMF (not war) and you later found out you were hoodwinked, you would STILL support the decision and say you would have done the same thing?


Wow...

I guess that explains why even 1 person still supports this misbegoten war.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice two-step, Starbuck75. You claim that the invasion was to establish an American "presence" in the ME, when our presence is already well established there. You're over-rationalizing the issues. It doesn't matter what the "real" objective was in the invasion of Iraq beyond the fact that it was a militaristic adventure in search of empire... just as Hitler's and Mussolini's objectives don't really matter, either. Their means, and those of the Neocons, remain unacceptable, regardless of the obfuscations employed to claim that naked aggression is something it's not. Basically, they claim mass murder as self-defense, and you really, really want to believe it's true, so a variety of mental gymnastics are required to reach any such conclusion...

The whole notion that the invasion would somehow "conventionalize" Al Qaeda is so lame and so preposterous as to be laughable. The notion that Al Q actually represents the kind of threat that the Bushies have made it out to be is also laughable. It is, however, a play straight out of the Nazi propaganda playbook or from McCarthy's "Red Scare" attempt at self-aggrandizement.

Hillary? She'd probably be all for the War, if it were successful. That'd be easier to do than to admit you've been hornswaggled, conned into the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the Nation... Her admission is forced by events, rather than driven by any honest conviction...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Hold it right there. This si why I say you are a Bush apologist. We chose Iraq?? No, Bush and Company chose Iraq. Any fool with a level head can see that we already had a presense in the ME by pccupying Afghanistan and the world wasn't condeming us for attacking them.

Quite simple...our victory in Afghanistan happened almost too quickly, with the Taliban and other militant Islamic groups having an opportunity to fade away, ready to strike another day. By going into Iraq, we essentially forced that network to engage on another front. Granted, I don't think it was a smart decision strategically, as we perhaps got more then what we expected in terms of resistance...that, and I don't think the policy makers took into consideration the factional entities in Iraq such that we would have to contend with a civil war on top of Islamic militants...nor did we expect the hold outs of Saddam'r regime to present such an effective insurgent threat.

So our victory in Afghanistan was too fast? It seems to me it might not have been fast enough because we let bin Laden escape. In Afghanistan, we had all we need to establish/expand our military presence in the ME.

I've heard people say that he fall of Baghdad and Iraq was too fast also right. To me, these are just more apologies for Bush's lack of planning and foresight. He knew how to be the "war president", he just didn't know how to conduct a war. He'd rather ride around in a jet declaring "mission accomplished" and showing off his package, lol. Look at his history, it seems he never has given a crap about the repercussions of his actions.

Well, he's backed himself into a corner again and all of us along with him. It's time for him to answer the tough questions. You should be asking HIM what the reasons are. I see the willingness of people not wanting to hold him accountable as just another way of defending/enabling him.

No, you are apologizing for Bush incompetance. Plain and simple. Just because you say you aren't giving him a "get out of jail card" doesn't mean you can't make excuses for him.

I'll say it again...pointing out someone's incompetence is in no way apologizing for their behavior...there is a distinct difference between attempting to frame a situation, and understanding the "why", versus accepting and by extention forgiving utter failure.

The problem is, that many of you dismiss as apologists anyone who doesn't agree with your contentions against the Bush Administration...you are certainly entitled to that opinion, as I am of my opinion...but labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you as an apologist is lazy, and quite honestly not that much different from the underhanded tactics that many of you criticize the NeoCons of using come election time...attack the messenger, and not the message.

And quite honestly, despite all of the arguments and hand waving I have read on this forum about the Bush Administration, very few have been able to articulate a reasonable theory as to why the NeoCons pushed for a war in Iraq.

We all understand that the WMD argument was a false pretense for going in...we all know the spin surrounding our operations there since the invasion commenced...what we don't understand, and we may never know, is "why Iraq."

Oil, a Bush family grudge against Saddam and Hallburton ties are the convenient answers...but I don't agree they are the correct ones.

I personally don't think you can blame everything on just one reason, but if you want to pin it down to just one reason, then I'd say MONEY. The Bush family are powerbrokers and didn't get where they are now without concentrating on the money. Money, power, more money, more power, etc.

Think about that the next time you fill your car up with gas or pay your heat bill. It is Bush and company who are responsible for long term effects and costs of this war. He needs to be pinned down and questioned. I think that saying it was "bad strategy" is just letting him off the hook and therefore apologizing for him. I see a lot of people that I consider "real" conservatives doing the same thing. If they truely want to take their party back then they need to suck it up and let ole Georgie boy take one for the team. If they aren't willing to do that then they will have to deal with the fallout of this war for a long time and it's going to cost them.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You claim that the invasion was to establish an American "presence" in the ME, when our presence is already well established there.

But not the extent necessary to meet the NeoCons objective for American military dominance for the next century.

It doesn't matter what the "real" objective was in the invasion of Iraq beyond the fact that it was a militaristic adventure in search of empire... just as Hitler's and Mussolini's objectives don't really matter, either.

Perhaps, but the concept of empire in modern times does not align to even the examples we have from the 20th century...throughout the Cold War, America managed its empire through spheres of influence and wars of proxy...claiming territory "Risk" style is not a prerequisite for empire building anymore.

Basically, they claim mass murder as self-defense, and you really, really want to believe it's true, so a variety of mental gymnastics are required to reach any such conclusion...

Mass murder is a misrepresentation of the facts...during WW2, from the firebombing of German and Japanese cities, to the atomic bomb drops, civilians became viable targets to achieve military objectives...the morality of such decisions is highly suspect and understandably open to criticism, but Iraq is not the first, nor will it be the last time, that innocent civilians have come into the crossfire.

The whole notion that the invasion would somehow "conventionalize" Al Qaeda is so lame and so preposterous as to be laughable. The notion that Al Q actually represents the kind of threat that the Bushies have made it out to be is also laughable.

Al Quaida did manage to launch a fairly devastating attack on American soil, so the threat they represented was hardly laughable...that, an Al Quaida, in its network of cells and supporters, exerts an influence beyond that usually attributed to standing armies...I am not claiming that making the WoT a conventional one was a sound strategy...I am simply trying to frame the strategy for what it is.

It is, however, a play straight out of the Nazi propaganda playbook or from McCarthy's "Red Scare" attempt at self-aggrandizement.

The Nazis did not invent propoganda, so stop evoking the term...rulers across the centuries have used propoganda, or the existence of a boogey man, to keep the populace in fear.

So our victory in Afghanistan was too fast? It seems to me it might not have been fast enough because we let bin Laden escape. In Afghanistan, we had all we need to establish/expand our military presence in the ME.

Yes it was too fast because we did not understand our enemy...we went in under the pretense that our enemies would face us on the field of battle...what we should have anticipated, but did not, was that our enemies in both Afghanistan and Iraq would surrender territory and control in favor of blending into the populace and striking through a war of attrition. The insurgencies in both regions do not require a decisive victory to win the overall conflict.

Well, he's backed himself into a corner again and all of us along with him. It's time for him to answer the tough questions. You should be asking HIM what the reasons are. I see the willingness of people not wanting to hold him accountable as just another way of defending/enabling him.

Yes it is time for Bush to start answering the tough questions...the time for rhetoric and spin is far over.
However, I do not agree with your assertion that the war is about money.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

You claim that the invasion was to establish an American "presence" in the ME, when our presence is already well established there.

But not the extent necessary to meet the NeoCons objective for American military dominance for the next century.

If it was you getting shot at I highly doubt that you would be of the opnion that we conquered them too fast or that we need even more terrority to invade and occupy.

Well, he's backed himself into a corner again and all of us along with him. It's time for him to answer the tough questions. You should be asking HIM what the reasons are. I see the willingness of people not wanting to hold him accountable as just another way of defending/enabling him.

Yes it is time for Bush to start answering the tough questions...the time for rhetoric and spin is far over.
However, I do not agree with your assertion that the war is about money.

Money = power, power = money. I think even more so in NeoCon thinking and policy.

You need to cleqarly state the reason(s) you think we invaded Iraq, because I don't think you are being intellectually honest with yourself or with us. Your dancing around the issues with out really saying what you think happened, why, and what we should do about it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gotta love it. I point out that the Neocons are militarists seeking empire, that our presence in the ME is already well established, and Starbuck75 counters with this-

"But not the extent necessary to meet the NeoCons objective for American military dominance for the next century. "

In other words, he agrees with me, yet defends the neocon vision of world hegemony achieved through wars of aggression.

And this-

"Mass murder is a misrepresentation of the facts...during WW2, from the firebombing of German and Japanese cities, to the atomic bomb drops, civilians became viable targets to achieve military objectives...the morality of such decisions is highly suspect and understandably open to criticism, but Iraq is not the first, nor will it be the last time, that innocent civilians have come into the crossfire. "

War IS mass murder, plain and simple. It's one thing to engage in such as honest self-defense, or defense of an Ally, entirely another to do so in an entirely voluntary and deceptive fashion, as was done in Iraq. The notion that it's self-defense is deeply and profoundly dishonest, yet that's the way it has been represented by the Admin- as pre-emptive self defense because 9/11 changed everything. And now they claim we have to stay as an act of self-defense, otherwise disaster will ensue...

Heh. Disaster has already ensued because of our own actions. It's a slow motion foreign policy trainwreck- once initiated, the conclusion is inevitable, and the amount of blood shed will render Saddam's brutality as trivial in comparison.

All of this was obvious going in, at least to anybody not drunk with power and deluded with grandiose visions of Empire...

 

[Lemon law]

Back in 10/2001---when I was a nobody---I saw this coming and I knew the reasons for the run up to the war in Iraq were as phony as a three dollar bill---and now in late 2006 people are now coming around to my way of thinking---even if I am still a nobody---but a Senator is a somebody---we pay them to think ahead and formulate wise policy---and see through the phony baloney sales tactics of lobbyists and policy advocate nuts.

Hillary failed that test---and so did many others---I have already posted that the dems should run someone in 08 who is either on the right side of the Iraq war vote---or uninvolved.

Like I said---Hillary failed that test---and no amount of I was fooled will change that---sorry Hillary---you blew it---and now must pay the price.

 

[Zebo]

Like Osama says "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." She obviously sees the strong horse today as antiwar sentiment as many republicans too. Like this is anything new...blowing with the wind.

 

[HomeAppraiser]

Republican Sen. Gordon Smith is backtracking also.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If it was you getting shot at I highly doubt that you would be of the opnion that we conquered them too fast or that we need even more terrority to invade and occupy.

That is not what I said at all...achieving influence, or hegemony, does not always necessitate the deployment of soldiers...nor does committing troops to combat necessarily ensure the achievement of such strategic goals.

You need to cleqarly state the reason(s) you think we invaded Iraq, because I don't think you are being intellectually honest with yourself or with us. Your dancing around the issues with out really saying what you think happened, why, and what we should do about it.

I have clearly articulated my theory on several occasions on this thread.

In other words, he agrees with me, yet defends the neocon vision of world hegemony achieved through wars of aggression.

Again you limit yourself to a NeoCon worldview...I didn't defend world military hegemony as a practical or viable strategic goal...but because I don't share your view on the issue, you put words in my mouth or otherwise dismiss what I have written. What you wrote is not even a reasonable interpretation of what I previously wrote.

It's one thing to engage in such as honest self-defense, or defense of an Ally, entirely another to do so in an entirely voluntary and deceptive fashion, as was done in Iraq.

Do you hold all American wars to such standards...America was involved in WW2 well before the declaration of war, and one must also question why there was such a delay in our direct involvement by deploying troops...similarly, America has engaged in numerous wars since its inception, most which do not fall within the category of noble intentions.

America has never truly fought a war in pure self-defense, or purely to defend an ally...from the War of 1812, through the Spanish-American, Mexican and Civil Wars, to the wars of the 20th century, America has always acted in its own best interests, and not always in response to a true threat.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
America was involved in WW2 well before the declaration of war, and one must also question why there was such a delay in our direct involvement by deploying troops...

You can thank the Republicans for that, they hounded FDR's ass trying to keep us from fighting the right in Europe in hopes we could all get along one day and trade with the Germans.


For example:


Republicans in the U.S. House vigorously denounced Willkie's support for FDR's Lend-Lease bill, saying it would lead to American boys needlessly dying on foreign soil. Fears were also raised that the wording of the bill appeared to give the President the power to declare war, a right reserved to Congress under the U.S. Constitution. But Democrats loyal to FDR had solid control of the House, consistently passing Administration bills by about a 100-vote margin. The Lend-Lease bill, despite its controversial content, was no exception and it passed by a vote of 260-165. Only 24 Republicans voted for it, with 135 against it. Link

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

I have clearly articulated my theory on several occasions on this thread.

You haven't "clearly" said anything except to rationalize "what ifs" to support your "theroy" that Iraq was just a "stupid strategic blunder". We have literally armies of intelligence wortkers, satellite imagery and unlimited funds to utilize these resources. Knowing what we know now and still thinking this was just a mistake that anybody could have made is either naive or deceitful.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned your going around in circles. You need to realize that anybody who originally supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and is still apologizing for him is just as stupid as he is.