If they knew it was "lies"?
If they were president doesn’t the vote mean they would have made the same decision?
Because it would appear that after 9/11 US citizens needed someone to blame, someone to pay, someone to feel their anger (and I suppose that’s understandable).
Watching from a different continent it seemed there was a general gnashing of teeth and despite the terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia, the oil companies…sorry, president Bush, selected the weakest of "rogue" states in the middle east to attack; a country which had nothing to do with 9/11.
However, once the ball was set in motion and the call for vengeance so loud, I think Bush could have selected Canada and congress would have authorised it.
It disgusts me slightly that a president and his cronies could use the pain of the citizens he is supposed to protect to line their pockets.
May 29th, 2010 at 6:08 am
"yellowcake" and $$$$$$$$$$$
References :
May 29th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Bush lied
Americans died.
References :
May 29th, 2010 at 6:25 am
Seeing as how Carl Levin was the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee…
http://levin.senate.gov/about/index.html
"Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he has earned a reputation as a strong supporter of our national defense and an effective waste fighter."
-And-
"Senator Levin also serves as the chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. For the last six years, he has directed his staff in a comprehensive money laundering investigation, which has led to strengthened U.S. anti-money laundering. In addition, Levin’s work has supported international efforts to detect and stop money laundering and terrorist financing."
-
This dude ‘sold the news to democrats’ and convinced them to authorize the war.
References :
May 29th, 2010 at 7:05 am
There are very few people who believed that Iraq didn’t have weapons of Mass Destruction before the war started.
That being said there were many politicians, that in the end voted for the war, that were pushing to give the inspectors more time before voting to initiate the war.
Clearly more time would have created more doubt about the existence of Weapons. So several people in the administration took it upon themselves to force a vote instead of giving the inspectors more time. Instead of mirroring the doubt that existed in the in the intelligence community they decided to present a case for certainty.
Given the case that was presented by the administration (A case that included not only chemical weapons but also Nuclear weapons) there is no way that anyone in Congress could vote against armed conflict. The administration claimed in its own way that the threat was imminent.
References :
May 29th, 2010 at 7:55 am
Because it would appear that after 9/11 US citizens needed someone to blame, someone to pay, someone to feel their anger (and I suppose that’s understandable).
Watching from a different continent it seemed there was a general gnashing of teeth and despite the terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia, the oil companies…sorry, president Bush, selected the weakest of "rogue" states in the middle east to attack; a country which had nothing to do with 9/11.
However, once the ball was set in motion and the call for vengeance so loud, I think Bush could have selected Canada and congress would have authorised it.
It disgusts me slightly that a president and his cronies could use the pain of the citizens he is supposed to protect to line their pockets.
References :
May 29th, 2010 at 8:28 am
They didn’t. They voted to give the President authorization to go to war. And every1 of them that did should be impeached because the Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. They took an oath to uphold the Const. and they violated that oath.
References :