Democrats Used to Say Colin Powell Lied Us Into War with Iraq, Now They Vote for Him Over Hillary

[Toddsterpatriot]

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.


So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

 

[WillReadmore]

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

You prove my point. Iraq and Afghanistan were not a threat to US interests, but Libya, Syria are.
You're just a partisan hack.

Again, if you want to discuss Libya and or Afghanistan, I'm ready.

But, the idea that they are trading cards is NOT ok.

 

[WillReadmore]

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

The war was justified on both of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

 

[WillReadmore]

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

The war was justified on both of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

False.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force. And, that was determined by the UNSC. Beyond that, Bush did NOT use the UN as a justification for war. So, not even BUSH agreed with you!!!

And, Iraq was absolutely ZERO threat to the US at a level that required military action. It did not qualify under any US justification for war. Also, it clearly broke the UN charter - a charter we promoted and signed.

There IS no justification for the Iraq war and there never was under the Bush administration or after.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

The war was justified on both of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

False.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force. And, that was determined by the UNSC. Beyond that, Bush did NOT use the UN as a justification for war. So, not even BUSH agreed with you!!!

And, Iraq was absolutely ZERO threat to the US at a level that required military action. It did not qualify under any US justification for war. Also, it clearly broke the UN charter - a charter we promoted and signed.

There IS no justification for the Iraq war and there never was under the Bush administration or after.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force.

I don't care what the UN said. We don't now and never did need their permission.

It did not qualify under any US justification for war.

Apparently it did qualify.

Also, it clearly broke the UN charter

Waaaah. LOL!

 

[ABikerSailor]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

 

[WillReadmore]

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

The war was justified on both of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

False.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force. And, that was determined by the UNSC. Beyond that, Bush did NOT use the UN as a justification for war. So, not even BUSH agreed with you!!!

And, Iraq was absolutely ZERO threat to the US at a level that required military action. It did not qualify under any US justification for war. Also, it clearly broke the UN charter - a charter we promoted and signed.

There IS no justification for the Iraq war and there never was under the Bush administration or after.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force.

I don't care what the UN said. We don't now and never did need their permission.

It did not qualify under any US justification for war.

Apparently it did qualify.

Also, it clearly broke the UN charter

Waaaah. LOL!

So, you don't care what the UNSC said.

At least you agree that that part of the joint congressional resolution didn't apply.

Which leaves only the one other.

But, Iraq didn't even pose a threat - so, that didn't justify war, either.

Which means you're running on empty, again.

 

[WillReadmore]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

"After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer."

Cite evidence found by weapons inspectors that backs this claim.

Or, are you just tossing out nonsense?

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Because the USA is misinformed totally about Hillary. You name it, bs for 25 years. The New BS GOP.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force

We don't need UN permission. Lack of permission is no legal barrier to US military action.

We have multiple ways to justify war. The UN is one of them.

Bush tried using that route and the congressional resolution on Iraq mentions the UN, so it ends up being discussed.

The war was justified on both of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq."

False.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force. And, that was determined by the UNSC. Beyond that, Bush did NOT use the UN as a justification for war. So, not even BUSH agreed with you!!!

And, Iraq was absolutely ZERO threat to the US at a level that required military action. It did not qualify under any US justification for war. Also, it clearly broke the UN charter - a charter we promoted and signed.

There IS no justification for the Iraq war and there never was under the Bush administration or after.

There was no UNSC resolution requiring force.

I don't care what the UN said. We don't now and never did need their permission.

It did not qualify under any US justification for war.

Apparently it did qualify.

Also, it clearly broke the UN charter

Waaaah. LOL!

So, you don't care what the UNSC said.

At least you agree that that part of the joint congressional resolution didn't apply.

Which leaves only the one other.

But, Iraq didn't even pose a threat - so, that didn't justify war, either.

Which means you're running on empty, again.

So, you don't care what the UNSC said.

Pretty much.

At least you agree that that part of the joint congressional resolution didn't apply.

I did? Which part?

But, Iraq didn't even pose a threat - so, that didn't justify war, either.

If you say so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

"After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer."

Cite evidence found by weapons inspectors that backs this claim.

Or, are you just tossing out nonsense?

Cite evidence found by weapons inspectors that backs this claim.

You want evidence that he wasn't working on nukes?

 

[rdean]

Colin didn't lie on purpose. It was the intel supplied by the Bush Administration.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Colin didn't lie on purpose. It was the intel supplied by the Bush Administration.

How was the Bush intel different from the Clinton intel?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

The only viable chemical weapons that Saddam had, he'd already used on the Kurds. And, since he had no viable chemical weapons, he had no WMD program.

And............exactly HOW do you think he figured chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer? Do you know what it takes to store those things safely? I do. Spent 20 years in the military and was working with "special weapons" in a couple of my commands. Besides...........chem/bio weapons all have an expiration date, usually around 10 to 15 years.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Colin didn't lie on purpose. It was the intel supplied by the Bush Administration.

How was the Bush intel different from the Clinton intel?

Because of 9/11. The whole world situation changed after that. And, there's the fact that it was viewed through partisan eyes. Jr. was pissed at Saddam for threatening to kill Sr., and wanted the oil that his daddy failed to get in 1991.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

The only viable chemical weapons that Saddam had, he'd already used on the Kurds. And, since he had no viable chemical weapons, he had no WMD program.

And............exactly HOW do you think he figured chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer? Do you know what it takes to store those things safely? I do. Spent 20 years in the military and was working with "special weapons" in a couple of my commands. Besides...........chem/bio weapons all have an expiration date, usually around 10 to 15 years.

The only viable chemical weapons that Saddam had, he'd already used on the Kurds.

He had and used chemical weapons? Keep that to yourself, it could be used as a reason to attack Iraq.

And, since he had no viable chemical weapons, he had no WMD program.

If you say so. He pretended otherwise.

exactly HOW do you think he figured chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer?

Did the Israelis bomb him again, after they took out his reactor?
Do you think a nuclear weapons program is cheaper than anthrax or nerve gas?
Seriously?

 

[WillReadmore]

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles, many of them were inert or unusable, and the program itself had been stopped.

Sorry, but just like rusty planes and tanks don't constitute an army, neither do inert and unusable weapons constitute WMD, as they aren't a clear and present danger.

And, it said that the reason they were exposed is because they were blowing up regular ammo that the chemical weapons were mixed in with.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

According to your link, those were ABANDONED stockpiles,

So what?

and the program itself had been stopped.

Okay. I guess Saddam should have told the truth and fully cooperated.

Oh yeah...............exactly WHERE were the nukes again?

After Israel took out his reactor, he must have decided that chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer.

The only viable chemical weapons that Saddam had, he'd already used on the Kurds. And, since he had no viable chemical weapons, he had no WMD program.

And............exactly HOW do you think he figured chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer? Do you know what it takes to store those things safely? I do. Spent 20 years in the military and was working with "special weapons" in a couple of my commands. Besides...........chem/bio weapons all have an expiration date, usually around 10 to 15 years.

The only viable chemical weapons that Saddam had, he'd already used on the Kurds.

He had and used chemical weapons? Keep that to yourself, it could be used as a reason to attack Iraq.

And, since he had no viable chemical weapons, he had no WMD program.

If you say so. He pretended otherwise.

exactly HOW do you think he figured chem/bio weapons were cheaper and safer?

Did the Israelis bomb him again, after they took out his reactor?
Do you think a nuclear weapons program is cheaper than anthrax or nerve gas?
Seriously?

You're just flopping around.

If you have evidence that justifies the conquest of Iraq, cite it.

 

[initforme]

q was a ific god awful mistake. Trump agrees. All agree with him on this.