Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
And?The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?
Nope. You said it not me. ". Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.
I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.
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.
The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.
The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Where that act had no authorization for military action.
FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
As far as Trump, why in the hell would you think I'd vote for Trump?
FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
don't forget this one:
CrusaderFrank washamericom
Papageo 13082974As far as Trump, why in the hell would you think I'd vote for Trump?
So if Trump is GOP candidate you won't vote for him. That's interesting. You said Obama was Putin's Bitch and then you post a NY Post report from September that declares the U.S. No longer the world's superpower. Russia is. Putin entered the fight late in Syria and leads a coalition of three. The U.S. Leads a coalition of dozens. And Russia is not involved in the fight against daesh terrorist scum in Iraq. Daesh is losing big time in Iraq and they are having setback after setback in Syria long before Putin entered Syria.
That NY Post op-ed you cited is grossly an un-American opinionated potshot at Obama that is already in two months proven to be absurd.
If you are absurd enough to post that crap you just might be absurd enough to vote for Trump should he win the nomination.
FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
don't forget this one:
CrusaderFrank washamericom
he looks like dukakis in the helmet. about as effective too.FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
don't forget this one:
CrusaderFrank washamericom
And?The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:Nope. You said it not me. ". Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.
I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.
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.
The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.
The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Where that act had no authorization for military action.
That is irrelevant to the fact that those were reasons the congress enacted the law and it gave authorization for military force.
Obama has given out more exploration permits than any other president. I recently read that his policies have led to oil/gas production that is equal to finding an entire Iraq.
The Keystone disaster shows that Obama is not in the hip pocket of the Koch's.
Airforce One Boeing 747 ain't the little pussy thing you ride. Bush has a Girls Bike & crashed the Segway & US economy.FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
It's a girl's bike and he's wearing old lady jeans...
Airforce One Boeing 747 ain't the little pussy thing you ride. Bush has a Girls Bike & crashed the Segway & US economy.FU! - This ain't no Girls Bike!butt hurt rw'ers
Reminds me of this
What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!
He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!
It's a girl's bike and he's wearing old lady jeans...
No they were not. Items in section 3 were GOALS - not reasons.And?The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:
Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.
I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.
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.
The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.
The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Where that act had no authorization for military action.
That is irrelevant to the fact that those were reasons the congress enacted the law and it gave authorization for military force.
Items under Section 3 were the specific reasons for the authorization. Nothing in Sec 1.
I'm not grasping at anything. There is a reason Sec 3 is called " AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES."No they were not. Items in section 3 were GOALS - not reasons.And?The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.
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.
The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.
The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Where that act had no authorization for military action.
That is irrelevant to the fact that those were reasons the congress enacted the law and it gave authorization for military force.
Items under Section 3 were the specific reasons for the authorization. Nothing in Sec 1.
You are grasping at straws blind.
No it really is not rocket science. Keep your myopic view that reinforces what you have already concluded. I have no more interest in it.I'm not grasping at anything. There is a reason Sec 3 is called " AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES."No they were not. Items in section 3 were GOALS - not reasons.And?The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.
The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?
And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.
The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';
The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;
Where that act had no authorization for military action.
That is irrelevant to the fact that those were reasons the congress enacted the law and it gave authorization for military force.
Items under Section 3 were the specific reasons for the authorization. Nothing in Sec 1.
You are grasping at straws blind.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States.......
It's not rocket science.
. I hate Putin, he is a thug and he makes our President look like an idiot.
I have no more interest in it.
