The Angry One

[danarhea]

The angry one? Are we talking about some p!ssed off Liberal? Not at all. We are talking about Chuck Hagel, decorated Vietnam veteran, Republican Senator, and Red State Icon, who talks about his displeasure at being deceived by the Bush administration, and who vows that it will never happen again.

The dishonesty of the Bush administration argument that whoever is not with us is against us breaks down with Chuck Hagel, who is one of the spokesmen for, not the radical left, but the 70% of Americans (mainstream America) who do not approve of Bush. And this is where the argument that those not in favor of the war being unpatriotic traitors who support terrorists shows its ultimate absurdity. Let the 30 percenters shill all they want to. It will not help them. There is no longer any need whatsoever to engage them in the dishonesty that, for them, passes as debate. America is onto them. It is they, the 30 percenters, who are no longer relevant in American politics, and it is time for us 70 percenters to move on and leave them behind, to wither and die, whimpering at the fate which has befallen them. We have better things to do.

Article is here.

 

[jujuman13]

Curiously although a few people are asking, how this war could have been started with all the protections the Constitution has by law, in place to prevent Presidential abuse of his position.
Perhaps the relevant question should be, Why was this war started?

No one, so far as I am able to ascertain, has bothered to ask this extremely simple question.

And yet the reason why the US has lost well over 3000 dead and spent well over $500 billion is so very important.

Oh yes, we are blithely informed, because of WMD in Iraq, but this was not, even at that time proven to be true.

Which leads us back to the question, Why was this war started?

The US electorate must also accept responsibility for this war as they re-elected President Bush into a second term, thereby acknowledging acceptance of his right to have declared war in the first place.

 

[danarhea]

Curiously although a few people are asking, how this war could have been started with all the protections the Constitution has by law, in place to prevent Presidential abuse of his position.
Perhaps the relevant question should be, Why was this war started?

No one, so far as I am able to ascertain, has bothered to ask this extremely simple question.

And yet the reason why the US has lost well over 3000 dead and spent well over $500 billion is so very important.

Oh yes, we are blithely informed, because of WMD in Iraq, but this was not, even at that time proven to be true.

Which leads us back to the question, Why was this war started?

The US electorate must also accept responsibility for this war as they re-elected President Bush into a second term, thereby acknowledging acceptance of his right to have declared war in the first place.

This may be Bush's war, but we must also blame Congress, who abrogated their own Constitutional responsibility in giving up their power to the president. It boils down to cowardice, as they preferred that Bush would take the political risks instead of them.

 

[Iriemon]

Curiously although a few people are asking, how this war could have been started with all the protections the Constitution has by law, in place to prevent Presidential abuse of his position.
Perhaps the relevant question should be, Why was this war started?

No one, so far as I am able to ascertain, has bothered to ask this extremely simple question.

And yet the reason why the US has lost well over 3000 dead and spent well over $500 billion is so very important.

Oh yes, we are blithely informed, because of WMD in Iraq, but this was not, even at that time proven to be true.

Which leads us back to the question, Why was this war started?

The US electorate must also accept responsibility for this war as they re-elected President Bush into a second term, thereby acknowledging acceptance of his right to have declared war in the first place.

There has never been to my knoweldge an in-depth investigation as to what intellegence the Bush Administration actually had, compared to the representations made. Maybe because of secrecy concerns the answer will not be known for years of decades.

Bush backers try to sweep this under the rug; I seen them argue that its irrelevant past history. I disagree, and not only from a historical perspective. The legitimacy and credibility of our occupation hinges on whether we were justified in bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. And given the results of the WMD and Al-Queda ties claims, it is not very good.

 

[Iriemon]

This may be Bush's war, but we must also blame Congress, who abrogated their own Constitutional responsibility in giving up their power to the president. It boils down to cowardice, as they preferred that Bush would take the political risks instead of them.

Agreed.
....

 

[AndrewC]

There has never been to my knoweldge an in-depth investigation as to what intellegence the Bush Administration actually had, compared to the representations made. Maybe because of secrecy concerns the answer will not be known for years of decades.

Bush backers try to sweep this under the rug; I seen them argue that its irrelevant past history. I disagree, and not only from a historical perspective. The legitimacy and credibility of our occupation hinges on whether we were justified in bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq. And given the results of the WMD and Al-Queda ties claims, it is not very good.

I dont' think an in-depth investigation is necessary. We pretty much know what the reasoning was. We also know, for the most part, what information they had about Iraq.

Bush has explained the real reason for the war many times. He wanted to take the fight to the terrorists and reform the Middle East. I think he believes it would be impossible to hunt down all terrorists individually. So, we attacked Iraq to hurt the terrorists. Bush hoped the terrorsts would come to Iraq and fight us. They have. He picked Iraq because he could get support for attacking it (well some support anyway). He knew that while some would complain. Privately nobody who mattered would care.

I also believe that they do follow the one percent doctrine. Did Bush lie about WMD in Iraq? Yes and no. No one could definitively say Iraq did not have any WMD. They could and did say that there was no real proof. That it was unlikely. If you are Bush, lack of concrete proof that they DIDN'T have WMD meant that they likely did. What is it some say? You can't prove a negative?

What bothers me is that recent opposition to the war is driven by selfish reasoning. Rather than what is right and wrong. If the body count was that same as it is today, but the war ended two years ago. We would not be having this discussion. No one would want to rehash decisions that have already been made. This country is not interested in what is wrong or right. We proved that when the majority of us went along with the Iraq invasion to begin with. No, this is all about cheap gas and an uncertain future. Given that that's the case. Facts, right and wrong don't really matter.

 

[niftydrifty]

Why was this war started? No one, so far as I am able to ascertain, has bothered to ask this extremely simple question.

"Why was this war started?"

 

[Just Me 2]

While I disagree with the war and how it is being handled it was NOT just Bush that made the choice to go to war. Congress had the same info as he did. He was being told the same things that Congress was. To put in solely in Bush's shoulders is wrong. It was Dems and Reps alike that ok'ed the war. They are ALL to blame.

 

[niftydrifty]

While I disagree with the war and how it is being handled it was NOT just Bush that made the choice to go to war. Congress had the same info as he did. He was being told the same things that Congress was. To put in solely in Bush's shoulders is wrong. It was Democrats and Republicans alike that ok'ed the war. They are ALL to blame.

from the article:

GQ: Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?
Hagel: Have you read that resolution?

GQ: I have.
Hagel: It’s not quite the way it’s been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That’s not quite what the resolution said.

GQ: It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
Hagel: In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.

GQ: But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not.
Hagel: Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.

 

[Just Me 2]

from the article:

GQ: Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?
Hagel: Have you read that resolution?

GQ: I have.
Hagel: It’s not quite the way it’s been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That’s not quite what the resolution said.

GQ: It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.”
Hagel: In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.

GQ: But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not.
Hagel: Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.

They are ALL to blame. If the war was going well they would all be using it to get elected but because it is in the toilet they want to get as much distance between them and it as possible. Again they are ALL to blame.

Oh and as far as I know the President can not send troops to war without the Congress backing it but I will have to do some investigation before I say that for sure.