Bush and Officials Lied leading up to Iraq war

[Alpha1]

Silly name-calling aside, my point still stands. If Iraq broke UN resolutions then it was up to the UN to make the call to invade Iraq. Just because the UN did not charge us with violating anything is irrelevant.

A few anti-American folks have tried to make an issue of the legality of this war, combined with attempts to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, etc.....
and the fact that the UN did not try to make an issue with the US for any violations is absolutely relevant....

The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.

Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cease-fire with Iraq included Iraqs agreement to disarm and submit to inspections....
This was judged to be our legal right to invade....as a member-state
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which began on March 18 to May 1, 2003, was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. Other countries were involved in its aftermath

 

[mattskramer]

A few anti-American folks have tried to make an issue of the legality of this war, combined with attempts to impeach Bush and/or Cheney, etc.....
and the fact that the UN did not try to make an issue with the US for any violations is absolutely relevant....

The United Nations Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."

Resolution 678 has not been rescinded or nullified by succeeding resolutions.

Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cease-fire with Iraq included Iraqs agreement to disarm and submit to inspections....
This was judged to be our legal right to invade....as a member-state
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, which began on March 18 to May 1, 2003, was led by the United States, backed by British forces and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland. Other countries were involved in its aftermath

Okay. I see your point. I think that it is a bit of a stretch for the US to reach back to an event 10 years ago to rationalize an invasion of Iraq. To invade Iraq not long after we invaded Afghanistan seems like poor timing too. Couldn’t Bush have waited until we could build up our military strength some more – unless perhaps he wanted the gullible American citizens to think that Iraq is linked with Afghanistan and 9-11 – at least until we invaded Iraq? Oh well. I’ll have to give the UN resolution issue more thought.

Thanks for not resorting to high-handed political rhetoric and name-calling.

 

[Alpha1]

Okay. I see your point. I think that it is a bit of a stretch for the US to reach back to an event 10 years ago to rationalize an invasion of Iraq. To invade Iraq not long after we invaded Afghanistan seems like poor timing too. Couldn’t Bush have waited until we could build up our military strength some more – unless perhaps he wanted the gullible American citizens to think that Iraq is linked with Afghanistan and 9-11 – at least until we invaded Iraq? Oh well. I’ll have to give the UN resolution issue more thought.

Thanks for not resorting to high-handed political rhetoric and name-calling.

To reach back 10 years a stretch? If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01

The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01

American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf

By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01

The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

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.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....

 

[eots]

To reach back 10 years a stretch? If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01

The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01

American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf

By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01

The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

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.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....

that's because Clinton is a nwo scum down with the sickness just like bush
they are not separate they serve to divide and conquer .
they are there to offer the illusion of choice its only two brands like nwo order light or new world order extra..the family's vacation together it was bush that essentially ran the Reagan administration after he was shot
the bush /Clinton dynasty has had a almost thirty year reign and their not done yet..its a total scam

 

[mattskramer]

To reach back 10 years a stretch? If nothing happened in the 90's I might agree....but

U.S. Strikes Iraq for Plot to Kill Bush
By David Von Drehle and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, June 27, 1993; Page A01

U.S. Navy ships launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service yesterday in what President Clinton said was a "firm and commensurate" response to Iraq's plan to assassinate former president George Bush in mid-April.

The attack was meant to strike at the building where Iraqi officials had plotted against Bush, organized other unspecified terrorist actions and directed repressive internal security measures, senior U.S. officials said.

Clinton, speaking in a televised address to the nation at 7:40 last night, said he ordered the attack to send three messages to the Iraqi leadership: "We will combat terrorism. We will deter aggression. We will protect our people."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Launches More Cruise Missiles Against Iraq
By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 4 1996; Page A01

The United States fired a second volley of cruise missiles against air defenses in southern Iraq last night
U.S. Warplanes Bomb Iraq
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Planes Hit Iraqi Site After Missile Attack

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 29, 1998; Page A01

American aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zone in northern Iraq attacked and destroyed an air defense site yesterday
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carrier, Marines Rushed To Gulf

By Barton Gellman and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 11, 1998; Page A01

The Clinton administration yesterday took its first substantial steps to reinforce striking power in range of Iraq, speeding deployment of a second aircraft carrier and a Marine amphibious group as Defense Secretary William S. Cohen warned that U.S. credibility is on the line and "time is running out" for Iraq to avert a military assault.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

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.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press
Friday, May 28, 1999; 11:29 a.m. EDT

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — U.S. fighter planes bombed a military command center in northern Iraq on Monday....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Clinton was not reluctant or adverse to killing Iraqis during those years....

Yes. Once in a while Iraq would “rattle its saber” and we would step in and remind it who is boss. I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the “no fly zone” so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity. Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq. The isolation strategy was working for the most part.

Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war – to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it. He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.

After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while: Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply. Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.

 

[Alpha1]

Yes. Once in a while Iraq would “rattle its saber” and we would step in and remind it who is boss. I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the “no fly zone” so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity. Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq. The isolation strategy was working for the most part.

Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war – to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it. He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.


Clinton attacks targets in Iraq....
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..

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.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
-----------------------------
So that how it works...? Bush needed a phony reason, while Clintons reason were on the up and up....Sure I get it now



After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while: Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply. Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.

hows how we go to war....

Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...
Get the hospitals in tip top shape.....uhuh
Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh
Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh
And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy

You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just because we are the biggest dog in the pack and can break the rules with impunity, does not mean that we didn't break the rules... it just means that the rest of the UN has decided not to make a big deal out of it... because we are the biggest dog in the pack and many of them owe us.

Let's both try to cut down on namecalling... I realize I have been guilty of it in the past, but I will try hard to do better in the future.... perhaps you should too?

I will try. Can not promise though.

 

[maineman]

hows how we go to war....

Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...
Get the hospitals in tip top shape.....uhuh
Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh
Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh
And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy

You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....

or...wait three months to have Hans Blix tell us that disarming Saddam is a fait accompli.

That would have been smart, doncha think? I mean... we had already scored a major diplomatic coup by getting Saddam to let the inspectors back in....why kick them out before they could get the job done just so we could invade, conquer and occupy?

 

[mattskramer]

hows how we go to war....

Give the troops a rest first....uhuh...

Did I say that? No. Give recruiting stations and recruitment drives time to encourage more people to sign up for military service. Increase the number of prepared soldiers.

Get the hospitals in tip top sharp...uhuh

Absolutely. It would have taken very little time for the commander in chief to have people inspect hospitals and make sure that they are ready. Instead, we get burst steam pipes near electrical cables, rats, mold, and holes in walls and floors, and garbage like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/walter.reed/index.html

Leadership blamed for shabby Army hospital building

http://www.wusa9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=56746

Major New Problems At Walter Reed

http://www.nysun.com/article/48950

At Top Military Hospital, Soldiers Contend With Mold, Mice, Mistreatment

Wait for the smoking gun....or what?the 100,000 die from anthrax?...uhuh

Could Saddam have flown enough canisters of Anthrax to kill 100000 before we received enough evidence that Saddam was making Anthrax and put a stop to him? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, it is reasonable to estimate that this Iraq war has resulted (so far) in the deaths of 100000 people, particularly if you count the Iraqi civilians, Iraqi soldiers, American soldiers, and service personnel.

With the time that we had, we could have improved and strengthend our intelligence gathering, recruited some anti-Saddam people to serve as spies, infiltrate his military structure, and collect real evidence, relay that evidence to authorities, and stopped Saddam before any 100000 casualty anthrax attack goes off.

Get permission from the UN or at least some members....uhuh

Yes. Some times it is good to make nice and not do things in practically a unilateral manner. Consider the world’s opinion of the USA.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=175

Anti-war sentiment and disapproval of President Bush's international policies continue to erode America's image among the publics of its allies.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/p...sregions_bt/326.php?nid=&id=&pnt=326&lb=btvoc

How long can we afford to ignore the sentiments of so much of the rest of the word?

And have a big armor supply?...Ohhhhkaaayy

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/121304B.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/26251/

Spc. Richard Murphy said, "When my company landed in theatre in May, I was one of the few soldiers equipped with body armor effective at stopping powerful AK-47 ammunition. My mother, an elementary school art teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the States. Other soldiers weren't so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets."

During a routine patrol in Baghdad June 2, Army Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a medic, was shot in the chest by an enemy sniper, hiding in a van just 75 yards away. The incident was filmed by the insurgents.

You know ...I'm gonna shoot a memo off the Sec. of DEF. right now..he needs to be aware of this ....

Look. It is obvious that the Bush administration is quick to send soldiers out there but is not that concerned with their health and safety. Note the poor conditions that the hospitals were in. Note the slow supply of armor. Do you really think that your letter (probably one among many) will make a difference? Thankfully we will soon have a different commander in chief. I doubt that he could do much worse.

Now, I have things to do. I guess that we will agree to disagree. In summary and in my opinion:

1. It was unnecessary for us to start the war when we started it. It might not have ever been warranted.

2. It was handled very poorly from the start to the present.

 

[jreeves]

no. Bush knew that there was not absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD stockpiles, yet he and his team continually asserted that there was. That is a lie.


apples and oranges, sweetie.

What you seem to forget about, is the democrats in Congress gave authorization for the war in Iraq. Why aren't you blaming your democrats? They get their own intelligence breifings.

 

[jreeves]

or...wait three months to have Hans Blix tell us that disarming Saddam is a fait accompli.

That would have been smart, doncha think? I mean... we had already scored a major diplomatic coup by getting Saddam to let the inspectors back in....why kick them out before they could get the job done just so we could invade, conquer and occupy?

When we started bombing the inspector weren't given full access, come on get real!

 

[jreeves]

Just because we are the biggest dog in the pack and can break the rules with impunity, does not mean that we didn't break the rules... it just means that the rest of the UN has decided not to make a big deal out of it... because we are the biggest dog in the pack and many of them owe us.

Let's both try to cut down on namecalling... I realize I have been guilty of it in the past, but I will try hard to do better in the future.... perhaps you should too?

No the reason the UN didn't try to accuse the U.S. is because they were more corrupt than a Chicago Politician.

 

[maineman]

No the reason the UN didn't try to accuse the U.S. is because they were more corrupt than a Chicago Politician.

that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it! I, for one, disagree.

 

[jreeves]

Yes. Once in a while Iraq would “rattle its saber” and we would step in and remind it who is boss. I read that Iraq would stir up trouble in the “no fly zone” so we would fly over to Iraq and drop a few bombs on its military activity. Still, in my opinion, those incidences did not warrant going to all-out war against Iraq. The isolation strategy was working for the most part.

Basically Bush was bound and determined to go to war with Iraq and 9-11 gave him the timing he needed to add another phony reason for the war – to have his cohorts subtly imply that Saddam had something to do with it. He marched into it recklessly and with insufficient preparedness.

After the Afghanistan war, he should have waited a while: Waited for our military to regain its strength, waited to make sure that our military hospitals were in top shape, waited and called for intelligence to give him absolute proof, waited to convince more member of the UN to condone a war against Iraq, waited for the military to build up its armor supply. Instead, he threw discretion to the wind and rode in there with guns blazing like a reckless cowboy.

You say it was Bush's fault but democrats appoved it with the authorization of war vote. Why don't you hold democrats responsible for it also, come on stop running from that vote. It was failed intelligence period.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I seem to remember Congress voting to give him authorization to go to war. Shouldn't Democrats pay too then?

Looks like we agree. Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out. That would be about 99% of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats. I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it.

The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it. And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.

You can say he misled Congress, but they get their own independent intelligence briefings.

The president gets more intelligence than congress. The non-partisan GAO confirms it.

Nonetheless, this is Bush's war. He gets the vast lions share of the blame. It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger. It's the president's war. It's not the Senate's war. You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war. It's Bush's puppy.

Bush didn't run the CIA.....

Yes he does. CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.

 

[maineman]

You say it was Bush's fault but democrats appoved it with the authorization of war vote. Why don't you hold democrats responsible for it also, come on stop running from that vote. It was failed intelligence period.

All but a handful of republicans in congress voted for the use of force resolution. A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution...

and those that voted for it will be on my shitlist until they repent and admit that the vote was a terrible mistake.

 

[Alpha1]

Looks like we agree. Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out. That would be about 99% of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats. I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it.

The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it. And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.




The president gets more intelligence than congress. The non-partisan GAO confirms it.

I saw something about this awhile ago.....the GAO huh? Gotta a link??



Nonetheless, this is Bush's war. He gets the vast lions share of the blame. It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger. It's the president's war. It's not the Senate's war. You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war. It's Bush's puppy.



Yes he does. CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.

The DCD Dude is back....you can go back to Post 667/668 and continue if you want.....when you get schooled dont' think you can run away until a few posts intervene and changes the topic and bails you out....

 

[jreeves]

Looks like we agree. Everyone who voted for the war - or has refused to apologize for there vote - should be tossed out. That would be about 99% of republicans, and about 30% of Democrats. I look forward to you joining me to vote against congressmen/women who authorized the war. When I have a real opportunity to vote against a democrat who authorized the war, and hasn't apologized, I take it.

The only time I ever had an opportunity to vote against Hillary Clinton, I took it. And I voted for Obama, who was against the war.




The president gets more intelligence than congress. The non-partisan GAO confirms it.

Nonetheless, this is Bush's war. He gets the vast lions share of the blame. It was ultimately his decision to pull the trigger. It's the president's war. It's not the Senate's war. You don't see liberals putting up threads blaming Senator Lindsey Graham, or Senator Mitch McConnell, anymore than you see them putting up threads blaming Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton for the war. It's Bush's puppy.



Yes he does. CIA is an Executive agency, run and staffed by Bush political appointees, and directly answerable to him.

Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.

 

[jreeves]

Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.

Show me where the General Accounting office has stated that the President recieves more intelligence than Congress. What the hell would the General Accounting Office say that anyway?

 

[jreeves]

Look at Obama's 2004 speech at the democratic convention, he stated that we shouldn't have went into Iraq with too few soliders. That doesn't sound like a sound rebuking for going to Iraq to begin with. I know, he gave a speech in 2002 in Chicago against the war to begin with. But in that same speech he conceeded that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. That to me is more of a point that would prevent him from being a good leader than his speech against the war. Bush screwed up, with prepartion not with his justification. The justification was a direct result of faulty intelligence and defiance on Saddam's part.

The CIA is an independent agency not an executive agency.....