So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Boss]

SH didn't have to make that gesture but it was made to show the world that his country was wide open to inspection because he said Bush and Blair were lying about his possession of WMD.

Let's straighten you out on some things here, dum dum...

Bush and Blair were not "lying" about documented and sealed WMDs which were in Saddam Hussein's possession as late as 1998. The UN had tagged these WMDs and were aware they existed.

The UN inspectors, contrary to what simple-minded morons like yourself seem to think, were NOT there to search for hidden WMDs. This was not an Easter Egg Hunt. They were there to confirm the status or destruction of known WMD stockpiles which had previously been documented. Saddam never provided the needed information to inspectors.

The gesture you keep harping on was made so that Saddam could obfuscate his responsibility to turn over information on his known WMD programs and stockpiles as outlined in UN1441, which he was REQUIRED to comply with immediately and unconditionally.

So it really didn't matter if he was serious as a heart attack (he wasn't) the obligation was never on the CIA to come play "Find the WMDs" in Iraq.

 

[Boss]

That is not my fact for you to call it incorrect. The UNSC cannot overrule a U.S. President. Of course not. I challenged your position that Bush43 had the authority to overrule the UNSC's majority determination...

No sir... your quote was as follows: "Bush was overruled by the majority on the UNSC that Iraq did not comply."

Bush DID have the authority as Commander in Chief with an official blessing from his Congress. Presidents do not cede their authority to the United Nations... never have, never will.

 

[Boss]

Six in ten Americans were right to insist on continuing the inspections.

Your numbers are bullshit, plain and simple.

 

[XploreR]

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

What you was told back then were fabricated lies to get your support for the war. Accept that fact, learn from it, and move on.

 

[Boss]

It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.

Well no, he didn't "go around' anything. He made clear when he allowed the UN to attempt "one last chance" at a diplomatic solution in the form of UN1441, that this was serious. As for language in UN resolutions... Bush has no voice or authority whatsoever. I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN. He did not, he made that very clear. Bush didn't give a shit what the UN said in their resolution... he promised serious consequences if Saddam did not immediately comply. Saddam did not comply.

 

[Faun]

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--

Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.

 

[Boss]

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

What you was told back then were fabricated lies to get your support for the war. Accept that fact, learn from it, and move on.

No they were not "fabricated lies" and you've never proven any such thing. There have been extensive hearings from several independent bodies and they all concluded the same thing... there were no "fabricated lies" by Bush or anyone else. There was faulty intelligence information and that has been admitted.

But UN 1441 and the war itself, wasn't about the faulty intel. The UN had already documented thousands of liters of chem/bio weapons materials inside Iraq in 1998. They put little blue UN tags on them and sealed their locations pending destruction. Then SH kicked inspectors out of Iraq and these WMDs have never been accounted for and still remain a mystery.

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately by disclosing all documentation regarding these WMDs and their programs. Saddam failed to do this and the consequence was a US invasion. Now pinheads are all running around yammering about how he never had any WMDs... but the UN did't just fucking DREAM they went to Iraq and put blue tags on WMDs! That REALLY happened. And IF Saddam didn't have the WMDs anymore, he should have simply shown the inspectors where they were destroyed... that's all it would have taken. We have the forensic technology to confirm if large caches of WMDs were destroyed and the UN would have been satisfied. Saddam refused to provide that information.

 

[Boss]

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--

Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.

Not really. It was Saddam's War.

 

[Faun]

Boss 11815495

No... here is what you said, asswipe:
No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

It was the ONLY justification for the war. Read the AuMF section directly speaking to what military force could be used for. There were two parts to one justification; "protect the national security of the United States" and "Enforce Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq." And 1441 became a very relevant Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD violations.

1441 did not say to make regime change in Iraq and put a U.S. 1998 law into effect there I create Demockarcy there uder layers of bombs and at the end of a barrel of a gun.

So how was Bush enforcing UN Resolution 1441 by citing a 1998 U.S. Law?

Again... the 2002 AUMF lists nearly three pages of "whereas" comments which are the reasons for the measure. Ignoring those and pretending they are somehow supposed to be listed elsewhere in the authorization is a bit juvenile and very clownish. Apparently, you are ignorant as to how legislation is written or something. In any event, your lie about the 1998 ILA not being a part of the reasons has been exposed.

I've read the specific paragraph of authorization, I fucking posted it, moron. It gives Bush authority to use military force at his discretion. It does NOT affix any obligation on Bush to let the UN make the decision. It does not state that the UN must find Iraq in material violation... it says "as he determines."

Neither UN1441 or the 2002 AUMF needs to bless or endorse a current US law. I don't get your point here. No, it didn't "enact a 1998 law" the law was enacted in 1998 by Congress, idiot. It was ALREADY US law!

Now you're simply lying and everyone reading this can see that. NotfooledbyW did not deny the 2002 bill referenced the 1998 bill, as you falsely claim he did. He denied the 1998 bill was the centerpiece of the 2002 bill.

 

[XploreR]

I get it... Bush started the Iraq War and created a destabilization by toppling Saddam and ISIS has filled the void. But this completely disregards what went down and what we were told by the people in the know back then. Those of us who supported the War in Iraq and the War on Terror, made it adamantly clear that our reasoning was simple, we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later.

What you was told back then were fabricated lies to get your support for the war. Accept that fact, learn from it, and move on.

No they were not "fabricated lies" and you've never proven any such thing. There have been extensive hearings from several independent bodies and they all concluded the same thing... there were no "fabricated lies" by Bush or anyone else. There was faulty intelligence information and that has been admitted.

But UN 1441 and the war itself, wasn't about the faulty intel. The UN had already documented thousands of liters of chem/bio weapons materials inside Iraq in 1998. They put little blue UN tags on them and sealed their locations pending destruction. Then SH kicked inspectors out of Iraq and these WMDs have never been accounted for and still remain a mystery.

UN1441 called for Saddam to cooperate fully and immediately by disclosing all documentation regarding these WMDs and their programs. Saddam failed to do this and the consequence was a US invasion. Now pinheads are all running around yammering about how he never had any WMDs... but the UN did't just fucking DREAM they went to Iraq and put blue tags on WMDs! That REALLY happened. And IF Saddam didn't have the WMDs anymore, he should have simply shown the inspectors where they were destroyed... that's all it would have taken. We have the forensic technology to confirm if large caches of WMDs were destroyed and the UN would have been satisfied. Saddam refused to provide that information.

The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be, and not at liberty to promote guilt. Saddam, jerk that he was, was also the ruler of a nation state not subject to the whims of the U.S. or any other nation state. He had the right to refuse that information. We have never found WMDs there since destroying that country, but we did succeed in creating a lot of well-deserved hatred toward ourselves for our brutality and arrogance during the invasion. Remember the ads before the invasion showing the "mushroom cloud"? Lies...all lies. Saddam had sponsered an assassination attempt on Bush, Sr., and Bush, Jr. wanted revenge. We fought an economically crippling war and lost several thousands of our own plus uncounted Iraquis, for personal revenge? If you want to support that kind of dishonesty in our leaders, go for it. I don't.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11815495

No... here is what you said, asswipe:
No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF.

It was the ONLY justification for the war. Read the AuMF section directly speaking to what military force could be used for. There were two parts to one justification; "protect the national security of the United States" and "Enforce Relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq." And 1441 became a very relevant Resolution with regard to Iraq!s WMD violations.

1441 did not say to make regime change in Iraq and put a U.S. 1998 law into effect there I create Demockarcy there uder layers of bombs and at the end of a barrel of a gun.

So how was Bush enforcing UN Resolution 1441 by citing a 1998 U.S. Law?

Again... the 2002 AUMF lists nearly three pages of "whereas" comments which are the reasons for the measure. Ignoring those and pretending they are somehow supposed to be listed elsewhere in the authorization is a bit juvenile and very clownish. Apparently, you are ignorant as to how legislation is written or something. In any event, your lie about the 1998 ILA not being a part of the reasons has been exposed.

I've read the specific paragraph of authorization, I fucking posted it, moron. It gives Bush authority to use military force at his discretion. It does NOT affix any obligation on Bush to let the UN make the decision. It does not state that the UN must find Iraq in material violation... it says "as he determines."

Neither UN1441 or the 2002 AUMF needs to bless or endorse a current US law. I don't get your point here. No, it didn't "enact a 1998 law" the law was enacted in 1998 by Congress, idiot. It was ALREADY US law!

Now you're simply lying and everyone reading this can see that. NotfooledbyW did not deny the 2002 bill referenced the 1998 bill, as you falsely claim he did. He denied the 1998 bill was the centerpiece of the 2002 bill.

Again, his direct quote:
"The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF."

and...
Why did you respond to my post where I was addressing the 2002 AUMF that Kerry and Clinton voted for because there were no iUN inspectors in Iraq? They [Democrats] would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law.

Here is MY quote:

Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong.

Okay... so his argument morphed from a complete denial that the 1998 IRL had anything to do with the 2001 AUMF to some myopic nit-picking over the term "a centerpiece" in my comment. Fair enough, I shouldn't have said "centerpiece" because there were actually about three pages of reasons given and that was only one of them.

Still... something that is a matter of US law is not up for debate nor does it have to be stated as justification for anything, nor does it have to meet the approval of the UN or anyone else. It's settled US law passed by the 1998 US Congress and signed by President Clinton.

 

[Faun]

It is entirely Bush's War because the October 2002 AUMF was passed one month before UNSC 1441 was passed by the UNSC with language that was accepted by Bush. And then Bush alone went around 1441 to start an invasion on his own.

Well no, he didn't "go around' anything. He made clear when he allowed the UN to attempt "one last chance" at a diplomatic solution in the form of UN1441, that this was serious. As for language in UN resolutions... Bush has no voice or authority whatsoever. I don't know where you're assuming he "accepted the language" or somehow ceded over his authority as President to the UN. He did not, he made that very clear. Bush didn't give a shit what the UN said in their resolution... he promised serious consequences if Saddam did not immediately comply. Saddam did not comply.

Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no fucking clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

 

[Boss]

The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...

No they weren't. There were several independent hearings in the US and UK following the war.

Wow... you people are amazing! You keep flailing away at thin air, not connecting any punches... yet you somehow think you're winning! I keep clocking your asses and you keep stumbling back to the middle of the ring for more. You've been reduced to muttering nonsense about my improper usage of verbs and such... in stunned disbelief that you're being pummeled.

 

[Boss]

Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no fucking clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The fuck are you talking about, fool?

 

[Boss]

He had the right to refuse that information.

This is where you are wrong. He did not have the "right" to refuse complying with the international community. He was allowed to remain in power in 1991 under some pretty strict sanctions and conditions which he did not want to abide. He continued to remain defiant until the end and he paid the price.

 

[Boss]

Remember the ads before the invasion showing the "mushroom cloud"?

I think you're talking about Barry Goldwater in 1964.

 

[Faun]

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--

Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.

Not really. It was Saddam's War.

Nope. You don't get to change your position after you admitted Bush was put in the position of deciding if there would be a war or not; just because it's inconvenient for your lunacy.

Bush was the 'decider.' He decided to go to war. The Iraq war will always be us's war.

Even worse for you is the reality that Bush's war was a miserable failure. How do we know that? Because YOU would be insisting it was Bush's war had it been a success.

 

[Faun]

Too fucking stupid. Bush had no voice in the U.N. resolution? Are you fucking nuts (rhetorical)? Don't you know the U.S. is a permanent member of the U.N. (one of only five)?

The U.S., in fact, was one of the primary authors of U.N. resolution 1441. You truly have no fucking clue of that about which you speak. It's beyond evident.

Bush was the President of the United States, not the UN Ambassador.

...The fuck are you talking about, fool?

What I'm talking about is that you're fucking baked. I didn't say Bush was the ambassador to the U.N.. I said the U.S. was a primary author of the resolution. And as president of said nation, Bush had a voice AND authority of what went into 1441. You display for all to see just how divorced from reality you really are.

 

[XploreR]

The people who ruled that there was no evidence any of this was lies, were politicians connected to the powers that be...

No they weren't. There were several independent hearings in the US and UK following the war.

Wow... you people are amazing! You keep flailing away at thin air, not connecting any punches... yet you somehow think you're winning! I keep clocking your asses and you keep stumbling back to the middle of the ring for more. You've been reduced to muttering nonsense about my improper usage of verbs and such... in stunned disbelief that you're being pummeled.

Keep in mind that the U.S. and the UK were the two strongest leaders of the invasion. Why would they allow independent investigations to subvert their war? Regarding my being "pummeled," I didn't realize we were in a war with this dialogue. I thought we were exploring ideas. Silly me.

 

[Boss]

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--

Exactly why it was Bush's war. Thank you for that tacit concession.

Not really. It was Saddam's War.

Nope. You don't get to change your position after you admitted Bush was put in the position of deciding if there would be a war or not; just because it's inconvenient for your lunacy.

Bush was the 'decider.' He decided to go to war. The Iraq war will always be us's war.

Even worse for you is the reality that Bush's war was a miserable failure. How do we know that? Because YOU would be insisting it was Bush's war had it been a success.

I haven't changed my position. You tried to make my position different and I didn't allow that. It was not Bush's war. All Saddam ever had to do was comply with UN1441 and there would have been no invasion. Saddam failed to do that and Bush fulfilled his promise.

The war WAS a success... despite the massive efforts of people like you and radical Islam to mess it up. In terms of casualties, we had lower loss of life than any war of that length that we've ever fought. We defeated the enemy army within a couple of weeks and brought the tyrant leader to justice. From that point, we dealt with radical terror insurgents who infiltrated Iraq from abroad... at the time, you were whining that we were killing Iraqi innocents. To this day, you still throw out casualty numbers as if we were killing Iraqis and not insurgent terrorists. Most of the formal Iraqi Army surrendered to US forces without confrontation.

Now whether the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act plans for democracy are going to work out in Iraq, that remains to be seen. But again, that was not Bush's idea, that was official US law passed two years before he was president.