why the blatant ignorance?

Question

why do people always tout the "bush lied" statement when all their democratic leaders said the EXACT SAME THINGS at the same time he did? they all backed him in going into this war... im not gunning for bush, i just see way too much political posturing from democratic leaders! im a realist, not a democrat not a republican.

p.s. sadam should have been taken out of power and this world a long time ago! do you forget that he invaded kuwait, (not to take out a tyranical leader, but to gain power, money and land) do you forget he murdered thousands of his own people with WMDS? do you forget???? we can all agree war is bad, but it all boils down to this, HE HAD TO GO!

Answer 1

Bush's devisive rhetoric intimidated a lot of them, and I do hold them accountable for buckling to the pressure. When Bush and Co. said they have all the intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, that their are Al-qaeda ties to Sadaam, and that you are either with us or the terrorist...it's almost like they had no choice. They would have been crucified for blocking the legislation.

Their biggest sin was trusting Bush, many Americans are guilty of the same thing.

Answer 2

Pressure to do "something" after 9/11 was on all our minds. All though all the infomation spewed out the Bush Administration was FALSE, it was what our Leaders were forced to work with. How can you possibly not give the Democrats their logic to vote in favor of Bush's plan at that time? The 2002 elections were right around the corner---How could they possibly go against such legislation when the time to sift through the facts prior to the election--just wasn't there. The scheme that took place was right out of the pages of the Nazi propaganda machine which has been adopted by Bush and Karl Rove.

You say your a realist. Then I hope you can wrap your mind around the realization of the need for these subpeona's and oversight that we didn't have during the first 3/4 of Bush's term. Something new to investigate comes out every week!! Were not even 3 full months in and look how many resignations, hearings, convictions and firings there have been just within the Administration. Your looking at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the criminal activities that will be discovered by this Congress.

Answer 3

What you are describing is not ignorance. People were seeing Bush's' popularity soaring. Something had to be done. No one knew what to do so the Democratic Socialist Party decided to deride the president. They talk about the plans they have, they have talked about having plans for the last 7 years yet have not shown anyone one plan.

If you do not like who you see and need to get back into power, deride the person in charge. Standard operating procedure for Democrats.

Republicans are getting tired of the same old rhetoric and at times go with the flow. B*&^% and moan.
Seems I fell into it myself. Sorry for doing the Hillary thing.

Answer 4

The Bush admin. claimed that Saddam had WMDs as well as links to Al Qaeda. There was an assumption on behalf of the Democrats that there was reliable intelligence upon which these claims were based. There was no such intelligence. Most intelligence ran contrary to these claims.
For example, when Ambassador Joe Wilson was sent to Africa to investigate allegations that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium, he instead found that there was no such evidence. Curiously, he was shown a document that seemed to suggest such an inquiry from Iraq, but was clearly a forged document, and Ambassador Wilson reported it as such. This is the fake doc. planted by the Admin. for Wilson to 'discover'. He didn't play along, and for that, admin. officials leaked to the press that Mr. Wilson's wife was a CIA operative.
The administration fabricated intelligence, and if you didn't play along you were punished.
Most of this info. wasn't well publicized until after the second election.
At the time of the vote, Democrats didn't vote for war. They voted to give the President the authority and funding to force, through military means if neccessary, Saddam into compliance with U.N. Resolutions to allow open access to Iraqi military and research centers to confirm that Iraq had no WMDs. The Democrats did this to scare Saddam into compliance. The strategy worked, as Saddam agreed to allow full access to the U.N. inspectors, who found no evidence of WMDs.
At this point, the Bush Admin. changed their demands, now requiring Saddam to prove that he had no such weapons. Since proving that you don't have something isn't possible, Bush attacked Iraq, destroying the nation's infrastructure.
I've seen your profile, John. Why are you pretending that you're not a neocon?

Answer 5

They have no values, intellect, or common sense enough to take a real look at the issues. When presented with the truth -they recoil like a snake, and hurtle insults because they do not have the intelligence or information to have a normal discussion. The truth is just a painful reminder of their obvious ignorance.

They treat books like Kryptonite, because reading is not as entertaining as the complete garbage on television or the latest conspiracy theory. These people are truly in the dark, they know it, and they are too lazy to do anything about it.

Answer 6

CaesarsGhost, come on, wake up and smell the coffee. There was no intelligence that Saddam had WMDs and links to Al Qaeda? You can't be serious.

Instead of believing all the leftwing lies, why don't you do little research for yourself. Try the senate intelligence committee report on iraq. Or try the Duelfer report on weapons inspections. The Duelfer report documented actual weapons that were found in Iraq. Weapons that were supposed to be destroyed under the UN inspections program, and weapons that saddam claimed he didn't have. The Duelfer report also stated that it was saddam's intention to get economic sanctions lifted against Iraq so that he could ramp up his weapons programs even more. The Duelfer report also detailed that Iraq had a "Poisons and Toxins for Assassinations Program" that the UN inspectors never even new about.

The senate intelligence committee report detailed numerous links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, yet you somehow believe that those links didn't exist. And Joe Wilson? Where to begin with him, since he has been thouroughly discredited. Joe Wilson LIED when he said his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger. He LIED when he said his trip to Niger completely disproved the uranium intelligence. In fact the Senate Intelligence Committee report made it clear that Wilson was LYING about his wife, and that the available intelligence made it "reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa." It also found that Wilsons trip to Niger "did not change the analysts assessment of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent MORE credibility to...original reports on the uranium deal."

As for claims that Wilson was shown forged documents during his trip to Niger, nice try. Wilson's trip to Niger was in February of 2002, the forged documents were given to the US embassy in Rome in October 2002, 8 months later, and the CIA didn't get copies of those documents until February of 2003. So how did Wilson report on those documents after his trip to Niger? He didn't. He was LYING about that also.

Whether you agree with the war or not, get the basic facts right instead of spewing more falsehoods.

Answer 7

This is the thing that most republicans who throw this in the face democrats forget. The Bush "administration" LIED to these people to get them to vote for the war. COLIN POWELL HIMSELF SAID THAT MUCH OF THE INFORMATION WAS MISLEADING AND NOT FACTUAL.

Like yourself, I am neither democrat nor republican. But you should seriously lookup the things that led to this war before you post these kinda questions. :D

Answer 8

The war only took on that look, once it turned bad. If the war had been a success everyone would be sore from patting themselves on the back. It is just good old fashioned politics, when the crap hits the fan disassociate yourself as fast as you can.

Answer 9

Saddam, his two sons, then 3,200 americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and billions of dollars of property for a war of revenge.

Too much. Bush is a management failure who has misled the world into complicity in mass murder.

Answer 10

In this one limited case, it's a valid argument.

The "war" in Iraq is legal. It's not actually a way, since Congress never declared war. But Congress did authorize the use of military force, following all the proper legal procedures.

So, the deployment of US troops in Iraq is legal, because it was approved by Congress. The arguments that it is illegal are based on emotional objections, not actual legal analysis.