Have you witnessed the hypocrisy of Y!A Libs when it comes to the justification for regime change in Iraq?

Question

Have a look at this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoQ8hafa0klsdIjQtHvOzajsy6IX?qid=20070813113520AAnzdHP

I asked Y!A libs why they were so opposed to the statements of the President regarding justification for attacking Iraq. Strangely enough, the answers turned into a Bush Bashing frenzy.

Trouble was, the quotes were from Clinton, not Bush.

Most libs ran and hid. A few came back and tried to squirm out of it, claiming that what was true in '98 was a lie in '03. that being the case, one would think that the Clinton administration would have made a declaration of success in Iraq. That never came, and even in '02 and '03, Dems joined in near universal acknowledgment that Saddam was a threat and regime change was the policy.

So, why are the Y!A libs in the link above such hypocrities?

Does it point to a much greater trend, that Y!A Libs place party above principle...all the time, regardless of the issue?

"Aviator" and "return"...wrong, wrong, wrong.

Clinton used that rhetoric to bomb the snot out of Bagdhad in 1998.

A pity you are so poorly informed.

poor little artgurl...whine whine whine...

If you had any fact in your response, or addressed the question at all, you might get a better retort...but you just whine whine whine.

Artgurl whines:

"presumes all liberals are Democrats."

whine whine whine.

"those you label as liberal gave you honest answers and didn't Bash Bush at all."

Baloney, go back and read the link, it had nothing to do with Bush, and the libs bashed and bashed. You say this is "criticism", not bashing. I say changing the subject to Bush, from quotes that He did not make, is flat out political bashing.

whine whine whine.

"The Dems in the senate and congress were wrong for giving Bush the powers of Congress to declare war."

Your opinion...unsupported as well.

whine whine whine.

Poor little artgurl.

Answer 1

Of course. Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. It's Public Law #105-338 and the URL is listed below. When the rantings start about the "illegal wiretap" program, there's a convenient loss of memory about the two 100-0 votes in Senate which passed Section 314 of Public Law #107-108 in December of 2001. That gave the President and other top officials the authority to conduct electronic surveillance for up to 72 hours without a court order. It codified what was contained in Executive Order # 12949, signed by President Clinton in February of 1995. None of the "experts" in our esteemed media have pointed that out in their "in depth" reports. There is also careful avoidance of the regime change in Belgrade occasioned by a Clinton-driven bombardment and NATO invasion of Serbia's Kosovo Province.
They get away with this because the public's sense of history only goes back two weeks at most, except when it comes to detailed knowledge of some celebrity. Since less than one in five adults has ever read the Constitution, the "Bush bashers" can yell about impeachment and the like.
As a 25 year veteran of the Navy, that last part is quite sad to me. Member of the Armed Forces take an oath to support and defend that Consitution. It's a damned shame when the civilians never get around to reading it.

Answer 2

First of all your question is leading and it presumes all liberals are Democrats. You're wrong about that. Second,
I think those you label as liberal gave you honest answers and didn't Bash Bush at all. Why do you consider critiquing and criticism as 'bashing'? I never understood this from cons on Yahoo boards. However, I did notice that you chose the answer that literally bashed liberals in a very petty way that wasn't critical but presumed that all liberals lie.
Most Americans now believe Bush lied about the reasons about going into Iraq. This isn't Bush bashing this is telling you why Americans, not just liberals, don't trust Bush. And, rightly so, I might add. The Dems in the senate and congress were wrong for giving Bush the powers of Congress to declare war. That is Congress' job and they gave Bush the right to say if the country should go to war or not. They also violated the constitution in this way. They are spineless, what do you expect? You do realize it's a one party system don't you? One party with two wings. But that doesn't get Bush off the hook. He lied to congress, along with Cheney about Iraq being a threat to the U.S and they invented intelligence along with cooking the intelligence books to follow their policies. That's well documented now.
Libs don't place party above principle because that presumes all libs are democrats or that they belong to a party at all. Perhaps you should look at the GOP, which is an actual party not simply a group of people, who has shown throughout the time between 1980 to the present that they have been placing party over principle and over their country all along.

Edit: Where exactly am I whining? Sheesh, I guess the ideas of analysis and criticality are lost on you.

Answer 3

Because if as many cons actually signed up to fight in Iraq as claim to support the war, the recruitment lines for the military would be blocks long. Instead, we read that the Army is having trouble filling its quotas. They have raised the age limit twice. They have also issued a record number of waivers for past criminal activity and medical issues. In addition, the aptitude standards have been lowered and recruitment bonuses have been raised. Also, individuals already in military service have had repeat tours of duty in Iraq and have had the length of their tours extended in order to meet the current need. The people who profess to support the war should be willing to fight in the war. The large number of people on Yahoo Answers who claim to support the war, if extrapolated to the general public, would constitute a substantial portion of the eligible public. There would be no need for the extraordinary measures that the Army has taken in order to enlist recruits.

Answer 4

Nicely baited! Your Clinton quote question sure gave them a jolt. What a change in tone from those who decided to respond further.

Angry, vehement rhetoric to backpedaling sour grapes rationalization. Pretty much sums up their thought processes on almost every issue!

Fortunately, the Y!A libs have a limited sphere of influence, mostly contained to their own heads. I bet it gets stuffy running around in those tiny minds, though.

Answer 5

Have you not ever noticed that Democrats only do what seems to be popular at the time? The war seemed like a good idea, so they voted for it. Now, they say they regret voting for it, say the war is not winnable and they cut the funding while they do this. As soon as the war became unpopular, they suddenly changed their minds to try to gain popularity. Cindy Sheehan was another example, a lot of Democrats backed her and many liberal news medias covered her story, however when she was old news and no longer as popular, the Democrats and liberal media cut her off.

Republicans make mistakes, however you don't see us change on view to what is popular at the time. Perfect example, the War on Terror. Bush said we were going to take the fight to the terrorist, and we have. Since we have, there have been no attacks on American soil since 2001. It may not be popular now, but Bush is holding to his word!

Answer 6

Any reasonable rep or dem understands that removing Saddam, or any other evil dictator, is a good thing.
The problem is in the inconsistencies and issues exploited for political gain by politicians as a whole on both sides of the fence.

Consider this; did we complain of Saddam's tyranny (in fact did any news coverage ever reach our shores from either "liberal" or "conservative" sources) during the 80's when he was slaughtering Kurds or abusing women? No, but these were used as much belated justifications to invade. America becomes "concerned" with dictator’s abuses only once they run afoul of American interests. Then this inflated concern and mission for democracy is used to herd the sheeple in this country to convince them to go along with public policy.

Oh, and it also doesn't help when it is found out that the scare tactics used to rush a jittery American congress and people hastily into war (read WMD's) was in fact nothing but fabricated evidence and outright lies.

The dems and reps would love nothing more than to have people argue back and forth pointlessly. It is time to realize they are both sides of the same coin.
Clinton's foreign policy (Balkan's, etc.) also led to unpopular military engagements for this country, but at least the rationale wasn't based totally on lies and misinformation as is the justification of the Iraq war has been.

The end does not justify the means. You can’t excuse Bush for allowing the American people to be deceived just because it resulted in unseating a dictator; not even by dredging up old bad news on a president from nearly a decade ago.

We have paid, and continue to pay, a heavy price for the small good the current administration has achieved in Iraq.

Answer 7

I don't know why Libs would get the quotes by Clinton confused by Bush. I didn't see a Git'er Done in there.

All kidding aside, Dems voted for this war just like the Repubs. So for them to back track on their statements just shows that some people don't want to admit when they are wrong.

Also even though Clinton was wrong in his statements as well. There was no war in 1998 in Iraq.

Answer 8

Hypocrisy ??

How many times will this administration change the reason for going to Iraq???

Bush, Cheney concede Saddam had no WMDs
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-10-08 07:48

President Bush and his vice president conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, even as they tried to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue — whether the invasion was justified because Saddam was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 ...

Answer 9

You know, like everyone here, that if the truth of the intelligence was known we would not be in Iraq today. So, again, the ends justify the means for you. A dishonest act for the greater good. Doesn't wash. If this was the right thing to do then why have we changed focus so much. What happened to the war on terror. It was abandoned by bush jr.

Answer 10

We only empower folks when we clamour for "regime change". It is NOT our position to do so in the first place... Changes come when they are due. Bill Clinton was as wrong as Bush on this one.

LAstly, considering that Bush deliberately targeted Hussein and his sons for bombing attacks, etc., isn't this a violation of Federal Law that makes it illegal for the US President to attempt or have killed, the leader of another state?