Lt. Army Colonel: "Obama Tried To Romance Putin And He Got Date-Raped"

[NotfooledbyW]

10469686 eagl

Halabja Poison Gas Massacre Kurdistan House

Against the rules to post the actual pictures of what Saddam did there.

What do you think you are proving? No one disputes it. All you are posting was known when Bush went to the UN and asked them to disarm Iraq peacefully and then ended the peaceful inspections in order to start a war.

You still won't admit the truth that Bush projected to the public that he wanted to see Iraq disarmed peacefully will you?

Why were you stating inaccurate facts such as the Troop buildup came before Iraq agreed to resume inspections?

 

[eagle1462010]

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler(R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).

• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.

• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
• United States Senate[edit]
  Party Yeas Nays
  Republican 48 1
  Democratic 29 21
  Independent 0 1
  TOTALS 77 23
  • 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:
  Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson(D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer(D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA),Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).
  
  • 42% of Democratic senators (21 of 50) voted against the resolution. Those voting against the resolution are:
  Sens. Boxer (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Durbin (D-IL), Mikulski (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Kennedy (D-MA), Stabenow (D-MI), Levin (D-MI), Dayton (D-MN), Wellstone (D-MN), Corzine (D-NJ),Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Wyden (D-OR), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Byrd (D-WV), andFeingold (D-WI).
  
  • 1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
  • The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)

 

[eagle1462010]

Bush had the votes to attack Iraq whether you like it or not.

It was never worded to THREATEN ONLY................

It was the law and there are the votes..................

I look at the law, and don't see it saying to threaten only..............Anybody else see that verse from the left's playbook in the law....................

 

[eagle1462010]

http://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/UNSCR1441.pdf

UN Security Council 1441 Resolution.

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council from US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council from US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

February 5, 2003

Oct. 2002 Congressional Votes Authorizing the President to Use Military Force Against Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Who voted for use of Force.

Timeline 1990 - 2011 - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

Time line of the build up to War.

Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), comments that, though the weapons inspectors had not found a "smoking gun" in Iraq, there was no guarantee that prohibited weapons and activities did not exist.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poor Obama

Sitting on a surging economy and strong dollar while tough guy Putin watches his economy collapsing

Who got raped?

Ukraine got raped. Obama simply took it up his ass, as you no doubt noticed being in there and all.

Ukraine is still there and no US troops got involved

Meanwhile, Conservative Messiah Putin is pouting as his once mighty economy is in collapse. Anyone want to buy a ruble?

Ukraine no longer has Crimea. I know you're a publicly-educated liberal, but still. Ukraine is still there is your defense of Obama?

Is Ukraine one of the 50 states?

 

[HenryBHough]

50?

No.

57?

Yes, one of the 7 that exist only in Obamerica.

 

[Synthaholic]

The moral of the story is: don't listen to Cons, they say a lot of shit that makes no sense.

“This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home.”

 

[Synthaholic]

Poor Obama

Sitting on a surging economy and strong dollar while tough guy Putin watches his economy collapsing

Who got raped?

These guys live in a fantasy world.

Putin played his little Crimea gambit, and Obama responded by organizing sanctions, which conservatives, of course, mocked as being inadequate.

Now here we are a few months later, and a surging US economy, helped along with record oil production, is doing great compared to Russia which relied too heavily on oil natural gas and oil sales, both of which are falling due to the US supply which is partly causing prices to fall. Meanwhile, the sanctions are biting.

Now, will conservatives give Obama credit? Of course not. You know they won't. But instead of at least noting that Putin's got some serious problems, American conservatives want to create a narrative where Putin is besting Obama.

Here's the question: Which man are American conservatives rooting for? Palin supplied that answer months ago when she sounded like a preteen girl at a Justin Bieber concert when talking about Putin. It's just one more example that conservative patriotism is contingent on them running the country. If they can't be in charge of the gov't, they're like anarchists who will take the side of anyone who's against their own president.

So when has Putin announced he is withdrawing from Ukraine?

When did he announce he was pulling out of N. Ossetia in 2008?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Was that supposed to be relevent somehow, Herr Schmutzspracher?

Yes. He invaded Georgia, and Little Dubya didn't do shit about it. Not even sanctions.

And what did you sniveling weasels have to say about it? Not a peep.

So shut the fuck up, dumbass.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

eagl 10469746

You simply say they said..........WE GIVE AUTHORITY TO THREATEN SADDAM...............

No I didn't write anything close to that. I wrote:

"The Dems in Congress gave authorization for Bush to determine if invading Iraq was necessary in order to enforce relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Do you need help with your ability to read?

They gave Bush43 the the authority use what ever military action he decided to take 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.)

That comes from the link you provided.

. [107th Congress Public Law 243]. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002. Public Law 107-243. 107th Congress. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''. [[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding 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.

So why was Bush limited to using force in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" if this authorization was a a direct decision to go to war?

And why did Congress insist that Bush's determination to use military force come after finding 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;

Like Bill Clinton said Eagle1, he agrees with everything Bush did except the timing of the attack. Clinton would have let the inspections continue. He would have determined that UN inspections could have the time they needed to finish their work.

 

[eagle1462010]

eagl 10469746

You simply say they said..........WE GIVE AUTHORITY TO THREATEN SADDAM...............

No I didn't write anything close to that. I wrote:

"The Dems in Congress gave authorization for Bush to determine if invading Iraq was necessary in order to enforce relevant UN Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Do you need help with your ability to read?

They gave Bush43 the the authority use what ever military action he decided to take 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.)

That comes from the link you provided.

. [107th Congress Public Law 243]. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002. Public Law 107-243. 107th Congress. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''. [[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding 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.

So why was Bush limited to using force in order to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" if this authorization was a a direct decision to go to war?

And why did Congress insist that Bush's determination to use military force come after finding 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;

Like Bill Clinton said Eagle1, he agrees with everything Bush did except the timing of the attack. Clinton would have let the inspections continue. He would have determined that UN inspections could have the time they needed to finish their work.

And again the vote was done because of Saddam's refusal to cooperate wasn't it.................

And again he had to have a gun to his head to a damned thing.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/addenda.pdf

CIA Report on Iraq..........facilities and so forth.

 

[rightwinger]

Let's see what our current president had to say...

The following is a transcript of the remarks then-Sen. Barack Obama delivered in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2002. In his speech, Obama said that what he was opposed to was "a dumb war ... a rash war." He said the war was a "cynical attempt" to shove "ideological agendas down our throats" and would distract from domestic problems such as poverty and health care.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I

 

[eagle1462010]

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Senate Intellegence Report same time period

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Putin doesn't need to rape Obama, Obama willingly gives himself to other men.

 

[JoeB131]

Saddam was a sick SOB. Not to be trusted, and the Dems don't have a high place on the Morality of War. Their side said the same thing. Other than using the time line to say they didn't say so, they have not countered the points of Saddam having the WMD's before the War. They later balk and SAY WE WAS ROBBED. WE WAS LIED TO................

Ignoring the fact that Clinton bombed them for the very same reason.

It's not the same thing. When you commit your country to a war and ask for the sacrifice of thousands of American lives, you have the moral obligation to be sure beyond any metaphysical doubt. Bush didn't do that. Bush Lied. People Died.

When Bush left Iraq was still intact NO...............Not so now under Obama leadership as we conduct bombing raids against ISIL who he called the JV Team.

Horseshit. The Kurds had established their own defacto nation and the Sunni Triangle was a lawless place. All Bush did was bribe the Sunnis to behave just long enough for use to make a graceful retreat.

Now, you can whine about the JV team (which wasn't directed at ISIL) all you want, but the reality is Bush fucked up Iraq. Bush lied, people died.
.

 

[April]

Thread Closed.