Crazy me but I'm pretty sure both parties voted for the intervention in Iraq. Of course, I was talking about the article's referencing the state of the VA and benefits, the state of which both parties are involved in. Remember I'm not a Republican - you need to step back and try and be objective.
Does it matter? By giving the authority they are culpable to anyone who isn't a democratic party hack or a blind GOP hater. A vote for authorization IS a vote for the intervention.
Yes one side did not receive all the action and were told by the the President that the vote was a vote to help the administration preserve the peace. But for the record the Dems were still negligent and do bear responsibility for their vote.
That's a cop out of the first order by the Democrats in Congress. The same objections that are repeated today to the intervention were voiced before the vote. I'm not surprised but disappointed that so many people would give the Democrats a free pass with this excuse. It's fairly ridiculous. Didn't see this, FB. I agree.
I realize that at first I didn't include it and added it via editing. You may have looked at the pre-edited response first.
That was when there was still unity in this country. When Democrats and Republicans were united - and Bush's lies about WMD's were not known to be lies. The Democrats suppoted the President by giving him the authority he requested. He used that authority to wage an illegitimate war. Dems may bear responsibility....but if that's the case, then I guess you are saying Bush and Co bear none?
'Lies' is your opinion and it plays exactly into the ridiculousness of giving Congress a free pass on the issue. 'Authorization' was Congress's responsibility and for them to claim they 'didn't know' or 'didn't have the facts' or whatever is just a lame excuse. It was their JOB to verify the administration's position or to withhold their authorization. Either they saw enough evidence (whether by groupthink or reasonbleness) and gave their authorization or they did failed to do their job. I'm not sympathetic to either excuse and neither should anyone else be, especially those who so adamantly attack the administration. You would definitely be 'guessing' if you think that's what I said. My point is that our Congress is just as much to blame for he VA's ruinous state as the Executive Branch.
Only neocons with heads in their asses couldn't see, 2 years ago, that their plan of democracy in middeleast was bound to fail.
The Dems gave authorization for Bush to use force to make Saddam Hussein disarm. They didn't give authorization for Bush to make up a story that Saddam had weapons so they could go to war. It was never clearly verified that Saddam has weapons. Never.
When Bush said that a vote to authorize him to use force, was really just a vote to help him keep the peace wasn't a lie? I don't think congress should get a free pass. But that doesn't mean they weren't lied to.
Yes, both parties, historically, haven't done nearly enough for veterans, excepting the WWII GI Bill, etc., passed for those millions of vets, for so many of our fathers and grandfathers. As to your point about the '70's, there were some differences. We were coming off a war in which a vastly larger number of military personnel, mostly draftees, were used, with a huge influx of vets needing help from the VA. The US military itself was larger by a multiple of at least 3, and I'm sure it was larger than that. In '73 you had the oil embargo, and the resultant inflation. The government was attempting to pay for what remained of the truncated Great Society programs, Vietnam having chewed up the budget. We were in the midst of the Cold War, with the military taking up a much larger percentage of the budget than it does now, despite the two wars currently being fought. In short, there were far more vets needing help, and far more items demanding funding. The vets really, really needed better care, and better facilities. It was a time of crisis. And you know what? They didn't pass tax cuts every year. They were busy scrambling to fund everything. The priorities may have been askew, but the largess passed around to Corporate America and the wealthy didn't remotely compare to what as we are seeing today from the Bush Administration and Republican Congress. Sure, we had the Democratic equivalent to the "Bridge to Nowhere," but on a far smaller scale. Passing such huge tax cuts when so much cried out for funding would have been considered an act of madness, imo. What times we live in. Keep D&D Civil.
Uh...then why did Congress give authorization? That's my point. And talk about 'making up a story' is just your opinion so don't state it as fact, please. What was the exact lie you are referencing? I don't think you can prove a charge of a lie, willful groupthink certainly, but not lying to Congress. The fact is that every objection to the intervention that is argued now was argued then. Every hole in the evidence was exposed then as it is now. Saying Congress 'didn't know because they were lied to' is a bunch of hooey.
This is what the President had to say about it. IT is obvious now, knowing what we know, that that wasn't what that vote was all about.
They gave authorization to use force to push Iraq into letting weapon inspectors in. It was meant to force Iraq to comply with U.N. security resolutions. But Bush just stuck his middle finger at the U.N. and went to war anyway and had Colen Powell present phony evidence to us and the world. How can this be excused?
No, no, no... Things are going great in Iraq -- schools have been built, roads in the green zone have stop signs, and above all the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens are increasingly down with the USA. If this isn't victory then I for one don't know what victory is.
The war was inevitable. There was no reasoning with Iraq, only posturing with the public. Anyone who disagrees is a liar and a fool, or possibly just a fool.
I'm not sure if you are trying to disagree with me when we're really in agreement? I think the money should have been found then, and should be found now. I think you'd agree. As I said previously, that's a bunch of hooey. Congress knew what they were authorizing. It is the whole reason there is an 'authorization' to begin with - the authorization to intervene. No quotes of goo goobilly goop change that fact. It was authorization to intervene in Iraq, period. If you're saying anything other than that you're just being an apologist for Congress. You say lie, I say groupthink. In the end it doesn't matter because you can't prove a lie and I can't prove groupthink, its just speculation. What we can prove is that it took an Executive decision and Congressional approval for the intervention. The Executive made the decision and Congress gave the authorization. If the decision was wrong then BOTH need to be held accountable.
