<p>
[My</a> Way News - Democrats Want Iraqis to Use Oil Surplus](<a href=“HeadlineAlley”>HeadlineAlley)</p>
<p>Is this an admission by the Democrats that the war was really all about oil or is this just a good business practice?</p>
<p>I think its more like: “We know you guys are pocketing your oil profits, we’re forcing you to spend it on rebuilding your country” </p>
<p>They preparing to withdraw next year</p>
<p>Well, way back when, amidst all the other lies, Bush, Wolfowitz and others said we’d be welcomed with flowers and Iraqi oil would cover many, if not most, of our ongoing costs.</p>
<p>Not a whole lot of what we thought would happen actually happened when it comes to Iraq (big understatement). But we did think we would be able to militarily topple Saddam in short order and that did come true.</p>
<p>If only we could have handed the keys of the car to someone and left in a taxi…</p>
<p>guess the Dems are calling the Repbulicans bluff…see if they come through on what they pledged…3 trillion dollars later</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t stand people constantly putting the blame of this war on the shoulders of Republicans. Democrats were all gung-ho about the war too, and don’t tell me it was because “they were lied too.” Don’t you get it? Democrats, like Republicans, thought this would be an easy quick war…and didn’t want to be on the “wrong” side of the American public. Now that it requires time they’re running and blaming everything on the Republicans. Say what you will about Bush and the conservative leadership but they have never ran from the fact that they supported this war to begin with, the democrats on the other hand supported it out of convenience and now that public opinion dies down they are against it.</p>
<p>In fact, it was Democrats under Clinton who pushed for the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998”, illegal under international law, and it was the so-called “experienced Democrats” who, when presented with the Clinton/Tenet Big Lie of 1998, pushed for military action in Iraq, including the massive bombing of the country in December 1998, after the Clinton genocide had failed to do the job.</p>
<p>In fact, George (a Democrat) Tenet’s “slam dunk” was a comment on how easy it would be to sell the WMD deception in 2002, he having personally sold the same bill of goods to Biden, Dodd, Lieberman, Gore, etc. once before. </p>
<p>Without the Democrats, there never would have been an invasion and hostile occupation, and the reality is that they continue to vote to maintain it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But they were lied to, and given that these lies helped create an atmosphere of not wanting to be on the wrong side of history, the liars hold more responsibility than anybody. </p>
<p>C’mon LaxAttack09, if the war had succeeded (a hypothetical that goes against all logic), you wouldn’t be saying the democrats shared the glory of making a good decision or of leadership. You’d say that George Bush showed strength and good judgement and that he should be praised singularly.</p>
<p>Don’t lie to yourself.</p>
<p>“the liars hold more responsibility than anybody.”</p>
<p>But the liars were Bill Clinton and George Tenet - none of the Republicans put forward any significant lies that Clinton/Tenet hadn’t already sold. That’s why Hillary didn’t even have to read the classified intelligence brief in her possession before voting for the aggressive, hostile occupation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) If you go by this logic then BUSH was lied too by the CIA. But that couldn’t possibly happen could it?</p>
<p>2) Damn right I’d be saying Bush did a good job if this war was over in 3 weeks, but don’t you think the democrats would be sharing in that glory? I sure as hell wouldn’t be able to attack them. </p>
<p>Democrats supported the war when it was the popular thing to do, now they don’t when it isn’t popular. They are a flim flam party on national defense.</p>
<p>Mini: Bill Clinton wasn’t president when the current Iraq War was geared up. I know you want to keep setting the record straight on the Clintons’ complicity; you’re just not following the debate here.</p>
<p>let me see, some people were for the war in Afghansistan and some were for the invasion in Iraq based on intelligence (faulty) a speech (faulty) and more</p>
<p>oh my</p>
<p>it was never a popular thing to do and as we have all learned the basis for this war was on falsehoods- known falsehoods</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The CIA as an overall institution painted a varied picture. The Administration cherry-picked the most extreme views of the danger presented by Iraq, fabricated others, amplified their positions by talking about “mushroom clouds” – and, yes, thereby lied. The Administration chose this war and stampeded Congress into it.</p>
<p>“Mini: Bill Clinton wasn’t president when the current Iraq War was geared up. I know you want to keep setting the record straight on the Clintons’ complicity; you’re just not following the debate here.”</p>
<p>Excuse me, but please read the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998” (illegal under international law).</p>
<p>You don’t get much understanding of the history until you understand the bipartisan nature of American foreign and military policy in the Middle East since the overthrow of the Shah.</p>
<p>“Democrats supported the war when it was the popular thing to do, now they don’t when it isn’t popular. They are a flim flam party on national defense.”</p>
<p>In the case of Al Gore, he did more than support it, he advocated for it long before it was on most people’s radar. He pushed for an “ultimate solution” for Saddam over a year before the invasion. Of course now he tries to be the “voice of reason” who consistently spoke out against the war. There are very few Dems who come out of this with any integrity.</p>
<p>Oddly enough, one who showed some integrity on this before he was driven off into the sunset was Dick Gephart. He was offered the “out” of excusing his vote by the fact that he was lied to; he didn’t take the excuse and instead said that he did his own checking with the intelligence community and concluded that the data was legitimate.</p>
<p>^^^ </p>
<p>Thus is the biggest crime turning out to be “supporting a war when it was popular” rather than the Administration’s guiding the push to war and getting the country involved in what is probably its largest foreign policy debacle of the last century.</p>
<p>And, by the time of the invasion and aggressive, hostile occupation, U.S. (and foreign) “intelligence” – the so-called “data” – was reduced to a single source: “Curveball”.</p>
<p>"Thus is the biggest crime turning out to be “supporting a war when it was popular”</p>
<p>No, the biggest crime was killing half a million children, 8 times more than killed by Idi Amin, more than killed by Pol Pot. The war (which ended in 2003, before the aggressive, hostile occupation) isn’t even close.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was really worth the lulz! I’m sure congress just takes the Presidents word @ face value. They have no inside knowledge of information, they have no contacts in various govt organization. All those dems took the Presidents word for it huh…they had no clue about the “whole” picture of Iraq right? Ya, that’s a logical belief :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re talking since 2000 that’s fine, but if you’re talking about the past 100 years you are nuts. If you call Iraq a blunder you surely consider Vietnam a blunder. Calling Iraq a bigger blunder is idiotic.</p>
<p>[A</a> Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions](<a href=“http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright]A”>http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright)</p>
<p>We’ll also accept a tray of fresh-baked rice krispie treats :)</p>