Did you Support War in Iraq??

[Correll]

Saddam would know where he wmds, were. If he was truly cooperating, he would just take them there.

SH knew he had none. He was proactively cooperating because verifying they were destroyed was what the inspectors were indeed working on when W quit cooperating to look for imaginary WMD that only existed in his lying head.

lol!! "Knocking down" my beliefs of then, even if you were to pull it off, would not change the fact that it was my belief then.

You can’t even read. Here’s what I said;

You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact. THey were destroyed. He failed to document their destruction.

THe inspectors were on a fool's errand that could NOT be accomplished.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

You are a liar. Nancy did not vote for the war if it ended up being determined by Bush to be necessary.

And Biden determined it was not necessary to start a war in the Spring or Summer of 2003 without a second UN Resolution and without letting the inspectors have the time they needed to finish their job.

Senator Biden February 2003: But I am going to front-end guess it. I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

 

[Correll]

You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

You are a liar. Nancy did not vote for the war if it ended up being determined by Bush to be necessary.

And Biden determined it was not necessary to start a war in the Spring or Summer of 2003 without a second UN Resolution and without letting the inspectors have the time they needed to finish their job.

Senator Biden February 2003: But I am going to front-end guess it. I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when.

You have demonstrated that you are willing to lie, IF, not worse than that, not knowing the difference between truth and fiction.


Of course, I mostly don't care about your reasons then for what you believed then. It is would be insane to think that arguing about the validity of them, would change the fact that they were your reasons then.


LITERALLY insane.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.

You are a liar.

That was one of the issues UNMOVIC on the work programme that Blix mentioned in his report to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003, ten days before the dumb war was started.

Mr. President, Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;​

Recent Items​

it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.​

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.​

This is one of your many current lies about the run up to the war in Iraq. Who do you think you are telling the United Nations Security Council and the best weapons inspectors in the world what they cannot do. You are a ridiculous bloodthirsty warmonger thinking you can get away with lying like that. What will it take to get you to stop lying?

And read that report by Dr. Hans Blix that I just posted above. He speaks about the ongoing monitoring that is to take place in Iraq to to keep SH in line after Dr. Blix and Mr al Beradai complete the inspection process.

United Nations Security Council was not walking away from Iraq once the inspection process was completed.

But quit lying. Dr. Hans Blix clearly believed they could resolve the issue of the unilateral destruction of weapons within about 90 days of his report on March 7 2003 Unless Butch forced him to leave Iraq to start a war to kill civilians while searching for WMD that was not there.

I as usual an posting the facts. I wonder what will be your response to the facts.

 

[Correll]

You can't verify destruction of something AFTER the fact.

You are a liar.

That was one of the issues UNMOVIC on the work programme that Blix mentioned in his report to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003, ten days before the dumb war was started.

Mr. President, Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks;​

​

Recent Items​

​

it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.​

​

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.​

This is one of your many current lies about the run up to the war in Iraq. Who do you think you are telling the United Nations Security Council and the best weapons inspectors in the world what they cannot do. You are a ridiculous bloodthirsty warmonger thinking you can get away with lying like that. What will it take to get you to stop lying?

And read that report by Dr. Hans Blix that I just posted above. He speaks about the ongoing monitoring that is to take place in Iraq to to keep SH in line after Dr. Blix and Mr al Beradai complete the inspection process.

United Nations Security Council was not walking away from Iraq once the inspection process was completed.

But quit lying. Dr. Hans Blix clearly believed they could resolve the issue of the unilateral destruction of weapons within about 90 days of his report on March 7 2003 Unless Butch forced him to leave Iraq to start a war to kill civilians while searching for WMD that was not there.

I as usual an posting the facts. I wonder what will be your response to the facts.

That was some nice spam. It certainly gave the illusion of being Authoritative, but without actually saying anything relevant.


Here are some problems with this post.


1. You are not credible. YOu have been very dishonest. YOur claims have no weight.

2. THe UN inspectors are not credible. Their claims have no weight.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I don't trust any of your statements on who said what when.

Of course you don’t. Facts are not allowed in your head. In this case they disrupt your war mongering ways.

I have posted what Senator Biden said during a Senate hearing in February 2003. It’s from the Congressional record. If you can’t trust the Congressional record you can’t trust anything.

Your fellow warmonger struth refuses also to hear what Senator Biden had to say Because he loves to lie about the run up to the war in Iraqjust like you.

Biden didn’t vote for war.

I’ve been clear on what he actually voted for. It’s based on the wording of the authorization to use military force Iraq if necessary

And he opposed Bush’s decision to start the war in March 2003. It’s in the Congressional record. Can you call me a liar for saying that. How to make you feel better about killing half 1 million Iraqis for nothing and wasting $5 trillion dollars the mistake of invading Iraq in March 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was some nice spam.

How many times are you going to embarrass yourself like that?

 

[struth]

You are lying about Iraq now. Thats what is urgent today. Knocking down your lies about what happened back then.

Biden voted for the war, Chuck and nancy too

You are a liar. Nancy did not vote for the war if it ended up being determined by Bush to be necessary.

And Biden determined it was not necessary to start a war in the Spring or Summer of 2003 without a second UN Resolution and without letting the inspectors have the time they needed to finish their job.

Senator Biden February 2003: But I am going to front-end guess it. I am going to front-end guess it. I come down on the side of suggesting that another several months is not something that in any way appreciably increases any risk.​

Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it

 

[meaner gene]

Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it

Congress approved using the military to go after those responsible for 9-11.

Bush lied that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

 

[struth]

Bush used the arm services after xiden and company authorized it

Congress approved using the military to go after those responsible for 9-11.

Bush lied that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[meaner gene]

They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.

 

[struth]

They did...and they also Authorized the Use of Force against Iraq

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.

maybe you should read there were numerous thing most notably to over throw saddam

and yes wmds were found

and yes UN resolutions were violated

 

[meaner gene]

Page Not Found


But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.

maybe you should read there were numerous thing most notably to over throw saddam

and yes wmds were found

and yes UN resolutions were violated

Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.

As far as finding WMD's the Charles Duelfer CIA report concluded that the WMD's found were lost, obsolete or almost inert.

And there were no UN resolutions, such as requiring Iraq to disarm, were no violated because, once more the CIA report concluded that Iraq had disarmed from their WMD's years earlier.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

 

[struth]

Page Not Found


But that authorization was only for specific purposes, such as to go after the WMD's which didn't exist, or to enforce UN resolutions that weren't violated.

maybe you should read there were numerous thing most notably to over throw saddam

and yes wmds were found

and yes UN resolutions were violated

Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.

As far as finding WMD's the Charles Duelfer CIA report concluded that the WMD's found were lost, obsolete or almost inert.

And there were no UN resolutions, such as requiring Iraq to disarm, were no violated because, once more the CIA report concluded that Iraq had disarmed from their WMD's years earlier.

of course it was! The Iraq Liberation Act was cited

geez you have no clue

 

[Correll]

Of course you don’t. Facts are not allowed in your head. In this case they disrupt your war mongering ways.

I have posted what Senator Biden said during a Senate hearing in February 2003. It’s from the Congressional record. If you can’t trust the Congressional record you can’t trust anything.

See this is the shit that I point to, that you are not credible.


THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

You are pretending that if it is there, it is a "Fact".


That is you being a liar, and thus not credible.

 

[Correll]

That was some nice spam.

How many times are you going to embarrass yourself like that?

Dude. YOu look retarded.

 

[meaner gene]

Overthrowing Saddam was not part of the authorization, as that would be in violation of the United Nations Treaty, which supersedes US law.

of course it was! The Iraq Liberation Act was cited

geez you have no clue

The Iraq Liberation Act supported opposing forces, not military action.

H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Summary of H.R.4655 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

www.congress.gov

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations:

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and yes wmds were found

Thats a better warmonger myth to believe Than the myth that Correll believes. He believes nation building was justification for the invasion. The WMD didn’t matter.

Correll​

• May 14, 2021
• #766
• Yes. I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time.
  
  

 

[NotfooledbyW]

THe Congressional Record shows that someone SAID, something, it does not mean that they are correct or were telling the truth.

Biden said this;

“So I sit down and I say, the value--not the legitimacy, not the justness, not the equities--this guy does not deserve another tenth of a second, but by giving him another 3 weeks, 3 months, or 6 months and not moving until the next``cold,'' quote/unquote, season in their--in the late fall, what is the risk of doing that relative to the amount of support we would pick up, making our overall job, which is going to be immense, in my view, easier? And that is a tough question.”​

What aspect of that comment do you think Is a lie?