The Truely Vile, Truely Mad Trumad KNEW Iraq was a lie.

[dutch508]

trumad (36,656 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025118515

I'm tired of the "I'm sorry I was mislead on Iraq" meme.
Look...If a bunch of knuckleheads on DU could figure out that the Iraq war was bullshit, politicians with a lot more resources should have know as well.

You were mislead because you wanted to be mislead. Next time do your ****ing homework!

Explain to me how the DUmpmonkiez knew but not the government who sat in the secret briefings?

joshcryer (47,017 posts)
1. Worse, Bush was going in without authorization.

Why give him any legitimacy whatsoever?

Just keep saying it over and over and someday it will be true...

The_Casual_Observer (23,236 posts)
5. I can recall having lots of arguments on DU with people who couldn't imagine it was a hoax.

It seems impossible now. Smirking Chimp was a great resource in those days for McClatchy News reports and so was Scott Ritter for that matter.

All the old lies come out of the box.

trumad (36,656 posts)
6. Will Pitt was a big part of it.

 

Journeyman (10,071 posts)
8. No politician was "mislead." Each made a conscious political decision to support a crime . . .

They weighed the options and on balance decided that pandering to the country's baser desires was preferable to making a stand for a moral imperative. Anyone who says else wise is lying.

Hissyspit (42,981 posts)
19. I wasn't on DU at the time and I knew it was bullshit.

My jaw literally dropped as I heard George Bush mention Iraq for the first time in Aug. 2002.

Then when I listened to Colin Powell's UN nonsense, I literally laughed out loud: "That's it? That's all you've got?"

I thought everyone would be mocking him the next day for such weak circumstantial nonsense.

I was shocked the next day to hear what supposedly intelligent people were saying.

One of the most disgusting corrupt periods of American history.

liberalmuse (15,789 posts)
21. I guess this is an eye opener...

that most of us already knew about, so, not so much. The fact is, our representatives chose to disregard millions of emails, phone calls and snail mails, not to mention protest after protest from their constituents in favor of trusting in the neocons who had been trying to drum war up all throughout President Clinton's (thankfully, he called bullshit) term since Gulf War I. I don't think I'll ever understand why they did that. But instead of putting the blame on the Democrats, I'm going to blame the Republicans for pushing this war in the first place. They are accountable, too. We liberals like to blame the Democrats believing they should have known better, but why in the hell do we seem to let the conservatives off the hook? They are no less human, and were given no less of a conscience. Just because we know they are prone to toss that conscience aside for money at every given opportunity should in no way leave them less culpable then Democrats.

onecaliberal (227 posts)
22. They did it

Because the MIC told them to do it. Big oil was in jeopardy of losing control of the oil flow. Barbara Boxer voted no on Iraq. She said from the beginning there was NO intel that Iraq had WMD. On the other hand
Diane Feinstein voted yes, she is married to someone who financially benefited greatly from the war.
Same old thing, follow the money. EVERYTHING is about money to these people.

 

ReRe (5,886 posts)
40. I knew long before 9/11........ that we would be in a war before we knew it. Colin Powell was going around the world rattling the sabers as soon as GWB took office. Then came 9/11 and all the rest. I've lived a long time on this earth, but those eight years were the worst eight years of my life. I knew it was all a lie, especially when Collin shook that little vial of baking soda in front of the camera during his speech at the UN. All I could think was "shame on you Colin, shame on you."

Corruption Inc (510 posts) <---mole

50. The war criminals need to be put on trial, not put on TV shows

The entire world knew the WMD lies were a conspiracy to commit war, knew that torture camps were war crimes and knew that killing and wounding 100,000s of civilians was also a war crime.

The propagandist criminal liars that pervade our entire political system need to be tried for their crimes and held accountable for their complicity in the crimes. Until that happens, the U.S. is living in "post-reality politics" world, aka "Orwellian".

Ikonoklast (23,197 posts)
63. Pure triangulating, political cowardice and base-covering of the highest order.

Those that say they were mislead are flat-out lying.

[franksolich]

joshcryer (47,017 posts)
 
1. Worse, Bush was going in without authorization.

Why give him any legitimacy whatsoever?

Huh?

[franksolich]

comment 2509:
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=81827.2500

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Some observations:

We went to topple a state sponsor of terrorism because its easier to choke-off the logistics than stop the individual terrorists. The AUMF cites Saddam's support of terrorism 3 times as often as it mentions WMDs.

The Proglodytes didn't foresee anything. They blared out continuously that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and vice versa. The insurgency flared-up as the US was finishing off the last of the Ba'athists. The insurgency came from AQ.

ISIS is an AQ off-shoot.

When ISIS was merely ISI they were funneling men and weapons into Iraq via Syria. When ISI was defeated in Iraq they turned on Syria.

Now ISIS is spreading back into Iraq.

Correct me if I'm wrong but every criticism of US foreign policy in Central and South America revolves around the US realpolitik support of hardliners. Now they are telling us if Saddam was still in power things would be golden.

They dread going into Iraq and curse the "chickenhawks" but they sure were hot and heavy to go into Nigeria after Boko Haram. I guess some races and genders aren't worth saving from Islamic terrorism.

We keep hearing this is about stealing foreign oil but they insist we not harvest our domestic supplies.

Huh?

The UN.

The Proglodytes will tell you Resolution 1441 was not legit because Putin and Chirac said it wasn't. IOW: the US is powerless unless the UN and corrupt foreign governments give their blessings.

[Carl]

    You were mislead because you wanted to be mislead. Next time do your ****ing homework!

Is he talking about the vote on Odumbasscare?

[FiddyBeowulf]

The UN.

The Proglodytes will tell you Resolution 1441 was not legit because Putin and Chirac said it wasn't. IOW: the US is powerless unless the UN and corrupt foreign governments give their blessings.

Or Obama does it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/19/obama-tells-congressional-leaders-he-needs-no-authorization-to-act-in-iraq/

With that violence as the backdrop, Democratic leaders offered support for Obama to use a 2002 law authorizing President George W. Bush to take action in Iraq as the legal authority for new strikes.

“I do not believe the President needs any further legislative authority to pursue the particular options for increased security assistance discussed today,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement released after the meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has previously backed that position.

So they are for the law after they were against the law...or maybe they finally got around to reading what was in it.

[Rebel]

Huh?

Yeah, right after he "rushed" into war by spending 18 long ass months trying to build his case for going into Iraq, and getting congressional approval.

DUmmies don't do logic very well.

[USA4ME]

trumad

Look...If a bunch of knuckleheads on DU could figure out that the Iraq war was bullshit, politicians with a lot more resources should have know as well.

They only said Iraq was a bad idea because Bush was in office. Had a dem said and done the exact same thing, they would have had the exact opposite view.

That's the problem with the trulymad primitives on the island; they can't get past the fact that their political POV is based upon who is in office and not the policy. Try as they might to deny that's the case, they have a documented track record that says they lying.

.

[hillneck]

onecaliberal (227 posts)
22.  She said from the beginning there was NO intel that Iraq had WMD.

Really, well I tell what there peckerneck, if I have to go back I will ask the Kurds or for that matter the Iranians if there were WMD's.  As a side note there is also a letter that a buddy gets stating he was or may have been exposed to sarin and/or a few other nasty things, because of the area he was operating in.

[FlippyDoo]

I know the below is true because I found it on the internet.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"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."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... 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 ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

The above from here (don't know the place so visit at your own risk): http://davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

[Airwolf]

And the Democrats were all for Vietnam when Johnson was in office as well. Then not so much after Walter Cronkite decided the war was lost and Nixon was in office. Sounds like they are just replaying their old tired meme again. Trumad your an idiot no matter what side of the political fence you are on.