Bush's $1 Trillion War on Terror: Even Costlier Than Expected

[LadyEagle]

Democrats on going to Iraq video:

http://www.qubetv.tv/videos/detail/456

Senate Democrats back Iraq war, Guantánamo prison camp
By Patrick Martin
16 November 2005

Senate Democrats went on record Tuesday to support the war in Iraq and the continued operation of the US concentration camp at Guantánamo Bay. A large majority of the 44 Senate Democrats lined up with the Republican majority and the Bush administration in key amendments to the defense appropriations bill. The Senate session culminated in a bipartisan 98-0 vote to approve the nearly $500 billion budget for the Pentagon.
In the two most critical votes, the Democrats gave their support by a 37 to 6 margin to a Republican amendment tacitly supporting the Bush administration’s policy on the Iraq war; and then voted 30-13 for a Republican amendment explicitly endorsing the use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/nov2005/sena-n16.shtml

 

[Bro. Curtis]

37 to 6 margin. Hardly an effort to block the war.

The O/P is a joke.

 

[KenH]

Yes, a lot of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq. I admit that I personally made a mistake in supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I should have listened to Ron Paul on this issue.

 

[Pastor Larry]

There was a lady several hundred years ago who presented your idea with the statement, "Let them eat cake." As I remember she ended up loosing her head.

That was my idea? I didn't say anything even close to that.

Why do you dislike helping or trying to help people so much?

What makes you think I dislike helping people? Again, I said nothing close to that. I merely pointed out the fact that we have thrown billions of dollars at people and problems and have not helped. So I am not happy about that. I think we should help people ... actually help them, not just throw money at it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

QUOTE=Don]Crab is right, in that this will forever be "Bush's War."

However, someone else brought up an excellent point that Crab and others seem to be overlooking: the Democrats have controlled Congess for how long now? Why aren't they pushing to exercise that balance of power we all learned about in civics class oh-so-many years ago, and represent the will of the people?

Or are they?[/QUOTE]

The Republicians controlled Congress when we went to war and they rubber stamped everything Bush proposed. So I ask, since the Reublicians controlled Congress the first 6 years of Bush's time in office, why did they not execise some control and exercise a balance of power.

Also once you stick your fists and your feet into a tar baby it takes quite a while to get become unstuck.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crab is right, in that this will forever be "Bush's War."

However, someone else brought up an excellent point that Crab and others seem to be overlooking: the Democrats have controlled Congess for how long now? Why aren't they pushing to exercise that balance of power we all learned about in civics class oh-so-many years ago, and represent the will of the people?

Or are they?

The Republicians controlled Congress when we went to war and they rubber stamped everything Bush proposed. So I ask, since the Reublicians controlled Congress the first 6 years of Bush's time in office, why did they not execise some control and exercise a balance of power.

Also once you stick your fists and your feet into a tar baby it takes quite a while to get become unstuck.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Two years, but without a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

Their majority was so small that a filibuster could not be hardly begun much less sustained.

 

[targus]

Two years, but without a filibuster proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

Filibuster proof majority?

Is that the new standard for getting something done in Congress?

Without a filibuster proof majority Congress has no resposibility for anything?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Filibuster proof majority?

Is that the new standard for getting something done in Congress?

Nothing new about it as it has been in the rules. It takes 60 senators to stop a filibuster. Thus currently unless on Republican crosses over a filibuster by the Republicians cannot be stopped.

The filibuster is a quirky but potent weapon that allows a minority of 41 in the 100-member Senate to block - and just as important, influence - all legislation before it even gets to the president. If Democrats win the White House, the filibuster would be the last institutional power left to the GOP.
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...+filibuster+proof+majority&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

 

[Revmitchell]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[Crabtownboy]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

All the quotes you made are academic. It was Bush who proposed and pushed for the war. It was, is and forever will be Bush' war.

To try to say otherwise is like saying Kennedy had nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs, that it was Eisenhower's fault he knew Cuba was dangerous.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It was, is and forever will be Bush' war.

Will you give him the credit when there are thriving democracies in the middle east and totalitarianism is hindered?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Will you give him the credit when there are thriving democracies in the middle east and totalitarianism is hindered?

Of course. I seriously doubt that will happen ... but I would be very happy to give him credit for beginning the process if it were to happen.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think I'll start calling Vietnam, "Kennedy's War".

 

[Crabtownboy]

I think I'll start calling Vietnam, "Kennedy's War".

You could do that with some justification. We did have troops in Vietnam when Eisenhower was in office. I was in the Army during the last year that Eisenhower was president and the, the Army, was asking for volunteers to go to Vietnam ... as advisors, or at least that was what they called them at that time. It was under Kennedy that the first buildup began. Remembe Robert S. McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, saying "We can bleed them faster than they bleed us", or words to that effect.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I het angry at your bias, CTB. Calling it Kennedy's war would be stupid, because he couldn't do it by himself.

Did you ever find the list of opposing Democrats ?

And how about the montage Mitch assembled for you ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

I

het angry at your bias, CTB. Calling it Kennedy's war would be stupid, because he couldn't do it by himself

.

I did not say I call it Kennedy's war. But you said you would begin doing so. I only said that you can do that if you like.

Did you ever find the list of opposing Democrats ?

Bush was president. Bush pushed for the war. Bush gave the order to attack. That some did and some did not support the war does not change the fact that it was, is and forever will be Bush's war.

And how about the montage Mitch assembled for you ?

Guess you missed my reply to Mitch.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I saw you write off his post with a smarmy remark.

And you still haven't produced any list, just more smarminess. You are happy in yer ignorance, and too lazy to challenge yourself.

You can call it Bush's war if you want, and I can challenge you on it, if I want. I don't care if the entire left calls it his war. The left is just as wrong about everything else. Bill Clinton & Al Gore worked just as hard as Bush did to make it happen.

Unless you can prove they didn't. You made the claim, and have done very little, except whine to back it up.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I saw you write off his post with a smarmy remark.

And you still haven't produced any list, just more smarminess. You are happy in yer ignorance, and too lazy to challenge yourself.

It was not meant as a "smarminess" [whatever that is] remark. I was serious. It does not matter what was said before the invasion. Bush pushed for the war. Bush, knowingly or unknowingly, used faulty intelligence in pushing for the war. Bush gave the order to attack. That makes it his war. No one can order the attack except the president. As Harry Truman said,

"The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job."

and thus once the decision is made it is his responsibility and that is how history will remember and judge a presidential decision.

I have always liked Truman, at least he was honest and knew that "The buck stops here."

You can call it Bush's war if you want, and I can challenge you on it, if I want. I don't care if the entire left calls it his war. The left is just as wrong about everything else. Bill Clinton & Al Gore worked just as hard as Bush did to make it happen.

They may have pushed for the war, but they did not give the order. You cannot blame the Lieutenant for the General's order. Bush gave the order, thus it is his responsibility to bear throughout history.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I think history will be kinder to Bush than the people who hate him hope for.