Troy Neff Show: Author David Horowitz talks about one of the greatest political betrayals in American history

Party of Defeat is a well-documented and disturbing account of the unprecedented attacks by leaders of the Democratic Party on a war they supported and then turned their backs on. In a democracy, criticism of war policy is legitimate and necessary. But deliberate undermining of a war policy, the authors urge, is another matter entirely. Every American concerned about the future of their country in the war on terror should consider the arguments in this book...[amazon]

Get the book 30% off at

Morning podcast:

David Horowitz Interview Part 1

David Horowitz Interview Part 2

Check out more interviews

Send your T-mails to

No votes yet

    were onboard with this war ,  the vast majority of  them ! 

if it hit them square in the face. No, they will never admit they were on board, they will just keep saying Bush lied. All the intelligence says the opposite of course.

year and Pink will use this board and others to try to get people believe their far out ideology. The sad part is they think they are normal. Calling the US president a regime shows how far out they are.

Did you boys actually READ the Iraq authorization? Did you actually READ Rep Kucinich's articles of impeachment? Do your homework before you start spouting off about ideology. Since when is adhering to the Constitution an "ideology" anyway?

Pink Slip

Enough said.

Truth is, authorization to use force in Iraq required the President to:

1. Prove that Saddam had WMD, and...
2. Prove that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11

Of course, Bush didn't comply with this. So it's a little disingenuous to say "_______ voted for the Iraq War". Although, I'll be the first to admit that Congress cannot simply pass on their Constitutional duty to declare war.

Pink Slip

1. Prove that Saddam had WMD
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
So since Iraq did not have WMD, like Clinton thought when he bombed a sovereign country, AND Congress did not authorize the use of force in Iraq, that makes Bubba a war criminal, right?

2. Prove that there was a link between Iraq and 9/11
"In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. "
So since Bubba claimed a link between Iraq and Al Qaida when he bombed a sovereign country, that makes Bubba a war criminal, right?

I just want to make sure you are consistant.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a

LibsYouCanBlow---Here are your answers:

1. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 states that whereas Iraq had WMD in 2002, force could be used by the President. It doesn't say anything about whether Iraq had WMD in the 90's or not. However, if it makes you feel better----if the Iraq Liberation Act said that in order to have the authorization to use force, Clinton had to prove Iraq had WMD, and he did not do so, and yet he still used force--then yes, I would say he was a war criminal. Do you have any evidence that this is true?

2. The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 states that whereas Iraq is connected to the 9/11 terrorists attacks, the President has the authorization to use force. It does not say anything about any "Baghdad-al Qaeda" link in the 90's.

Pink Slip

"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted 2001-09-18), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001."

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 81 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 296 133 0 3

What Terrorist group attacked us on September 11, 2001?

"President George H. W. Bush requested a Congressional joint resolution on January 8, 1991, one week before the January 15, 1991 deadline to Iraq specified in the November 29, 1991 United Nations Security Council Resolution 678. President Bush had deployed over 500,000 U.S. troops without Congressional authorization to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region in the preceding five months since Iraq's August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait. President Bush said that as Commander-in-Chief he did not need Congressional authorization to use military force against Iraq and that his request for a Congressional joint resolution was merely a courtesy to Congress."

A courtesy by the Commander In Chief, as the Commander In Chief invades another country.

Some like to quote that people did or did not follow the Constitutuon and or the Constitution has to be followed to the letter.


The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.... "

Why do we keep arming government and leaders that we know are openly corrupt, repress the people in the countries they pretend to lead.

Why do we keep doing this?

We did it with Iran and Iraq.

We did it with Indonesia, when Suharto invaded E. Timor and then the slaughter of many people took place in a soccer stadium, all with the support of the U.S.

The support of Central and South American dictators and the disappearance of many thousands of people, all with the help of Republican and Democratic administrations.

And yet, as we sat in our homes and enjoyed all the freedoms we have, we allow other nations to restrain, with draw and suspend freedoms for the citizens of the countries with repressive and dictatorial leaders.

Libya comes to mind.

Drop the weapons and get on the U.S.'s good side and oil companies raced into to set up shop, all in a near complete and total dictatorship, now a friend of the U.S.

The American people and the United States Congress were lied to by the Bush #43 Administration. There could never have been a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, because they hated each other. Al Qaeda's leadership is, and was, made up of extreme religionists who believe that Muslims who do not practice their religion faithfully and in the same may as, say, Osama Bin Laden, are sacrilegious hypocrites and infidels. Saddam Hussein was a secularist. The only time he trotted out his Muslim roots was when he wanted to rally other Muslims behind his anti-U.S. tirades.

Al Qaeda trained for years under the protective cloak of the extreme religionists in the Talaban government of Afghanistan. The war against that Talaban government in Afghanistan was, therefore, totally justified. And don't misunderstand. I don't feel sorry that Saddam Hussein met the fate he so richly deserved. The members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, who have changed their minds about the Iraq War, have, mostly, done so based upon the evidence proving that the Bush #43 Administration lied to them in 2001 and 2002, and as the truth about Iraq has been disclosed since then.

Meanwhile the American troops tied down in Iraq make it nearly impossible to put enough forces into Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden. Our troop overcommitment to Iraq also makes any threat we make against Russia regarding their invasion of Georgia one that we can't back up with meaningful military might.

Unlike Bush #43, Ronald Reagan, Bush #41, and Bill Clinton all got America involved in military incursions that had clear goals and with clear exit strategies, even when the incursions didn't work out well. In Bush #43's case, it appears that the current Iraqi government is prepared to have the U.S. exit Iraq before Bush #43, or Mc Cain, for that matter, is ready to withdraw those troops. The position of the Iraqi government is much closer to the position of Barack Obama on the withdrawl issue than it is with that of the leading Republicans.

The congressional vote approving the Iraq War was based upon the presentation of only partial data gathered by both civilian and military intelligence information. The Bush #43 Administration presented only the information they knew would convince the majority in Congress that a war with Iraq was necessary for our national security. More and more the evidence is strong that President Bush #43 and his advisors purposely deceived the nation they are supposed to serve with honor. Makes lying about a personal affair pale in comparison, doesn't it? And, for those Republicans who still love to bring this old one out, only one person died at Chappaquiddick. How many thousands have died in Iraq? There are lies and there are LIES!!

The extremists in Afghanistan were supported by the government of Pakistan, our allie.

"Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, has pledged full cooperation with the United States against terrorism, but Pakistan will need to carry out a U-turn in its policy of support for the Taliban if it is to regain the West's confidence and end its present diplomatic isolation. The stark policy choices the military faces may also require a complete turnaround from twenty years of clandestine support to jihadi parties and the growth of a jihadi culture, which has sustained its policies in Kashmir and Central Asia.

After having spent the past seven years providing every conceivable form of military, political and financial support to the Taliban, Pakistan is now essentially being asked by Washington to help the US bomb the Taliban leadership, along with their guest Osama bin Laden, and topple the Taliban regime. "

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.