Analysis: Cheney defends Iraq war, skips failures

Cheney was nothing more than a fraud and a war provoker along with a war profiteer. A friend to nobody. He'd stab your back at the snap of a finger.
Trust him as far as you can throw a refrigerator.

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --March 16, 2003

Lewis Libby wrote:

Cheney was nothing more than a fraud and a war provoker along with a war profiteer. A friend to nobody. He'd stab your back at the snap of a finger.
Trust him as far as you can throw a refrigerator.

Obama Starts an ILLEGAL WAR while Escalating his other War 4 times within 18 months.


Obama & Cheney are the same.


Too bad you LIED about cheney profiting from war. It was proven he sold his stock and remaining gains from options were donated to charity.

- OUCH!-

2002: Waiting to be sure of Saddam danger could be too late - Joe Biden


"Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts. That he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons."
--Sen. John Edwards, Sept. 12, 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."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct. 10, 2002


"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Nov. 17, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2003



"If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late."
--Sen. Joseph Biden, Sept. 4, 2002


http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Joe_Biden_War...

Cheney was Vice President, like Joe Biden. He had no real power. Bush is the hero behind the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and should receive the credit for these successful endeavors. Our kill ratio is about 1,000 to 1. Sweet!

Wall Street Government wrote:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -- on the Iraq insurgency, June 20, 2005

Senate Vote to Authorize War Shadows Clinton

by David Greene
NPR


March 24, 2008

As a U.S. senator, arguably the most important vote that Hillary Clinton (D-NY) cast was whether the nation should go to war with Iraq.

Her 2002 vote to support President Bush's decision to authorize the war has dogged her ever since, but that fall, the drumbeat of war could not have been louder.

That year on Capitol Hill, lawmakers faced the grave decision of whether to approve this language: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

It was an especially important test for Democrats, as the young Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, made clear at the time.

"The majority of the American people tend to trust the Republican Party more on issues involving national security and defense than they do the Democratic Party, and I think we need to work to improve our image on that score," he said.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Wall Street Government wrote:

We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." --March 16, 2003

Voting for the War with Presidential Ambitions

Perhaps no one was feeling the pressures as much as Clinton. She knew the vote would be a defining one. When she spoke on the Senate floor, she said her New York constituents were on her mind.

"I come to this decision from the perspective of a senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation," she said at the time. "In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Besides, Clinton said then, the administration had made a powerful case, armed with intelligence about Iraq.

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she said.

She called Saddam Hussein a tyrant, a man who even tortured his own family to hang onto power. She chose her words carefully: "A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him,'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"

In the end, the Senate gave the president those powers. Clinton and 28 other Democrats in the Senate Majority voted for war.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...



Tom Daschle =(D) Senate Majority Leader for Iraq War Vote

Voters Question Clinton's Decision


NPR

Roger Tilten, a voter who came to see Clinton about a year ago at a town hall in New Hampshire, told Clinton that he wanted her to say, once and for all, that her vote to authorize the war was a mistake. He noted that "a lot of other senators have already done so."

She responded, "I have said, and I will repeat it, that knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it."

At a debate in Ohio last month, Clinton was asked if there is a vote she regrets.

"Well, obviously, I've said many times that although my vote for the 2002 authorization for war was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again," she said. "I would certainly, as president, not have taken us to war, and I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war — that I warned against and disagreed with."

No matter what she says, though, that vote remains part of the backdrop and part of this campaign.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...





Now hear Obama Insane:

Get our troops out by the end of 2009 speech:

"I have put forward a plan that will get our troops out by the end of 2009. We already saw today reports that the Iraqi minister suggests that we’re going to be in there at least until 2018, a decade-long commitment. Currently, we are spending $9 to $10 billion a month. The notion is that we are going to sustain that at the same time as we’re neglecting what we see happening in Afghanistan right now, where you have a luxury hotel in Kabul blown up by militants and the situation continues to worsen.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008



http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...

Obama says one thing & does another in Libya-


Congress decides deployment level & duration, not president

Q: Can the president disregard a congressional statute limiting the deployment of troops--either by capping the number of troops, or by setting minimum home-stays between deployments?

A: No, the President does not have that power. To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.


Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007




http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...




IMPEACH Obama!

Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed

President Obama then did exactly the thing he LIED about when president!




Q: Is Petraeus correct when he says that the troop increase is bringing security to Iraq?

A: "There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That’s why I’m going to bring this war to a close."

"That’s why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that’s only compared to earlier this year. We’re back to where we started back in 2006."

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007



http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...




Obama is a LIAR.

Open-ended Iraq occupation must end: no military solution

But is miraculously OK when done by pres Obanana in Afghanistan! LOL!


Q: What is the best and fastest way to get out of Iraq?

A: I opposed this war from the start. In part because I believed that if we gave open-ended authority to invade Iraq in 2002, we would have an open-ended occupation of the sort that we have right now. And I have stated clearly and unequivocally that that open-ended occupation has to end. The idea that the situation in Iraq is improving is simply not credible, and it’s not reflective of the facts on the ground. The hard truth is, there’s no military solution to this war. Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict. Extending the surge is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war.

Source: Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, sponsored by MoveOn.org Apr 10, 2007


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...

Democratizing Iraq will be more difficult than Afghanistan

Obama proven WRONG once again: Decides to Escalate Afghan War 4 times instead

Q: Afghanistan has just conducted the first elections in its 5,000-year history. They appear to have gone very well-at least, up to this point. Is that not a hopeful sign for Iraq, and for the elections that we may be seeing there in January?

A: It is an absolutely hopeful sign for the people of Afghanistan. As I have stated unequivocally, I have always thought that we did the right thing in Afghanistan. My only concerns with respect to Afghanistan was that we diverted our attention from Afghanistan in terms of moving into Iraq, and I think would could have done a better job of stabilizing that country than we have in providing assistance to the Afghani people.

All of us should be rooting for the Afghani people & making sure that we are providing them the support to make things happen. With respect to Iraq, it’s going to be a tougher play. I don’t think any of us should be rooting for failure in Iraq at this point. This is no longer Bush’s war, this is our war, and we all have a stake in it.

Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...

No action against Iran without Congressional authorization but is perfectly fine starting an Illegal War in Libya





Q: In what circumstances would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?



A: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.

It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J.Res.23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.”

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...

Voted to fund war until 2006; Senator wants no blank check until or unless he is President


Q: Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war; that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and had a sense of the anti-war fervor in the Democratic base. Where was the leadership?

A: I disagree with that. Throughout I was a constant critic. It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding. My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to negotiate a different direction in Iraq is by not giving Bush a blank check when it comes to funding.

Q: You have changed now in your support of cutting off funding.

A: But I haven’t changed in my opposition to the war.
Except in Afghanistan & Libya...and when Biden claims Obama won the Iraq War! LOL!



http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_...

Joe Biden To Impeach President Who Starts Arab Wars Without Congress


by Ken Layne


Here’s funnyman Joe Biden talking about how he’s going to impeach the president for starting some random war against a Muslim nation that isn’t doing anything to us … oh wait, he’s talking about a previous president. This must be an old appearance on Hardball. We’ve got ‘em all on VHS, every episode going back to 1956 ….

The important thing is that this Libya clusterphuck seems to be as poorly thought out as any Bush Junior imperial misadventure, minus the grand designs and years of wingnut think-tank scheming. But the result is the same: blood on the sand and enrichment of the U.S. defense industry.

We were listening to Bloomberg in the car tonight when ace reporter Lizzie O’Leary broke down the incredible amount of money American Taxpayers are spending right now on this Libya thing:$160 million worth of missile strikes, millions for each bomber flight, etc. It still was a drop in the bucket compared to the TWO BILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK the U.S. is pissing through in Afghanistan, but it’s also more than NPR’s entire annual revenue, of which about 2% of that comes from government funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

IN OTHER WORDS, if we could only de-fund NPR for all of next year, one more missile could be shot at some Arabs somewhere.



http://wonkette.com/441090/joe-biden-to-impea...




- OUCH!-

Joe Biden:‘Impeach The President!’

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Obama Escalates the War in Afghanistan — End the Occupation - Bring the Troops Home Now!




Dec 2, 2009
By Dan DiMaggio


Barack Obama has decided to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, on top of the 21,000 additional soldiers he ordered there earlier this year. This will bring the total number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to over 100,000.

Millions in the U.S. and around the globe are undoubtedly asking why Obama, who was elected with what many viewed as an anti-war mandate, has decided to escalate what is an increasingly unpopular and seemingly unwinnable war.




Obama is a War Monger!

I see Laughing Liberal's Obama Tourettes Syndrome has kicked in again.

Lewis Libby wrote:

Cheney was nothing more than a fraud and a war provoker along with a war profiteer. A friend to nobody. He'd stab your back at the snap of a finger.
Trust him as far as you can throw a refrigerator.

FLASH: THIS JUST IN......SARAH PALIN RUNS IN IOWA MARATHON.........OBAMA JUST KEEPS RUNNING.....AND CAMPAIGNING IN FRIENDLY ENVIROMENTS........Obama is a bigger wennier than........Weiner.

Obama will spend Labor Day at AFL- CIO rally, gearing up for this week's address following dismal jobs report. OK EVERYBODY WHEN THEY HOLD UP THE SIGNS........BE SURE TO CLAP AND CHEER.