When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Article 15]

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

Because that's how we count the votes?



A majority of the Democrat Members of the House DID vote AGAINST the Resolution.

A MINORITY of the Democrat Senators voted against the Resolution.

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

 

[regent]

So given the FACT Saddam wouldn't comply with the SANCTIONS and murdered by starvation 500,000 children
AND if he were still there today, still not complying, the sanctions in place, another 500,000 children would starve!
Sanctions began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power) or 13 years.

Ah, yes.....Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait!!!

Yeah....we really took a strong stand on that one!!!​

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990

Meeting With U.S. Envoy​

APRIL GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

That whole episode was a farce. The Iraqi people have paid the price, the American people have paid the price, and now Bush and Republicans have paid the price. Who profited? Was it all for the oil companies, the military contractors, votes, a place in history, what in the world was it about? WHY?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The Iraq invasion was the most cowardly act this country has ever committed.

At least, it ranks....right-up-there....with giving Hussein permission to invade Kuwait!!

Gee....what're the chances BU$HCO set-up Hussein for an (eventual) invasion of Iraq....to (just) TAKE their oil....as a fortune of War???



*

​

 

[Redfish]

So given the FACT Saddam wouldn't comply with the SANCTIONS and murdered by starvation 500,000 children
AND if he were still there today, still not complying, the sanctions in place, another 500,000 children would starve!
Sanctions began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power) or 13 years.

Ah, yes.....Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait!!!

Yeah....we really took a strong stand on that one!!!​

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990

Meeting With U.S. Envoy​

APRIL GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

That whole episode was a farce. The Iraqi people have paid the price, the American people have paid the price, and now Bush and Republicans have paid the price. Who profited? Was it all for the oil companies, the military contractors, votes, a place in history, what in the world was it about? WHY?

we can ask the same question about afghanistan. why are we sending our kids to that hellhole to get their arms and legs blown off? we all know that when we finally leave that country will revert to the corrupt leftist jihadist place that it was before we got there.

Why has this country not been able to learn the lesson of viet nam?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

Because that's how we count the votes?



A majority of the Democrat Members of the House DID vote AGAINST the Resolution.

A MINORITY of the Democrat Senators voted against the Resolution.

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

 

[Redfish]

Because that's how we count the votes?



A majority of the Democrat Members of the House DID vote AGAINST the Resolution.

A MINORITY of the Democrat Senators voted against the Resolution.

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

as someone said earlier, liberals are not interested in facts, facts screw up their talking points.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

Another bogus analysis.

Yes, Congress did make provisos. But they also did allow the President to make the decision BASED on his determination that the provisos were met.

He could not make that decision, however, absent their grant of authority.

So spin and twist and flip and flop all you guys want. Doesn't change a blessed single solitary thing. They bear responsibility, too.

Based on Han Blix's final report the weapons inspections were going better than ever. So the UNSCR 1441, which the US agreed to, was in effect and was being effective. So not only did bush violate the Joint resolution but he also renigged on our obligations to the UN thus destroying what his father had worked so hard to achieve thru the UN.

July 27, 2010

Hans Blix;
British Iraq Inquiry Commission
C-SPAN​

​

 

[BlindBoo]

Another bogus analysis.

Yes, Congress did make provisos. But they also did allow the President to make the decision BASED on his determination that the provisos were met.

He could not make that decision, however, absent their grant of authority.

So spin and twist and flip and flop all you guys want. Doesn't change a blessed single solitary thing. They bear responsibility, too.

Based on Han Blix's final report the weapons inspections were going better than ever. So the UNSCR 1441, which the US agreed to, was in effect and was being effective. So not only did bush violate the Joint resolution but he also renigged on our obligations to the UN thus destroying what his father had worked so hard to achieve thru the UN.

The conclusion you propose does not follow from your limp premise.

President Bush was not bound by the questionable conclusions of Hans Blix in making his own determination. There was NO such condition imposed in the Resolution passed by Congress.

Further, the President did not reneg on any obligations to the UN. Nor did he "destroy" what his father had worked to achieve. IF anything, the US action finally gave some teeth to the ineffectual body laughingly known as the United Nations.

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.

(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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

The Bush Administration did vote in favor of UNSCR 1441 and renigged on it's obligation.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

GHWB- https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/why-we-didnt-invade-iraq-by-george-h-w-bush-in-1998.200976/

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money, so was viet nam and so is afghanistan.

I think most informed people agree on that.

The lie here is that Bush went into Iraq based on a lie that he, and he alone, created because he just "wanted a war".

That is revisionist history at its worst and partisanship at its worst.

We need to learn from history and that is virtually impossible when history is constantly being rewritten for imagined political gain.

Give it another 20 years.

As usual....Corporate America will have a whole NEW Generation o' testosterone-fired, young-dudes they'll convince of a need for War....and, old Iraq combat-vets & anti-War folks will (once, again) have their patriotism questioned, for not automatically falling-into-line.​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Based on Han Blix's final report the weapons inspections were going better than ever. So the UNSCR 1441, which the US agreed to, was in effect and was being effective. So not only did bush violate the Joint resolution but he also renigged on our obligations to the UN thus destroying what his father had worked so hard to achieve thru the UN.

The conclusion you propose does not follow from your limp premise.

President Bush was not bound by the questionable conclusions of Hans Blix in making his own determination. There was NO such condition imposed in the Resolution passed by Congress.

Further, the President did not reneg on any obligations to the UN. Nor did he "destroy" what his father had worked to achieve. IF anything, the US action finally gave some teeth to the ineffectual body laughingly known as the United Nations.

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.

(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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

The Bush Administration did vote in favor of UNSCR 1441 and renigged on it's obligation.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

GHWB- https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/why-we-didnt-invade-iraq-by-george-h-w-bush-in-1998.200976/

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

 

[Article 15]

Because that's how we count the votes?



A majority of the Democrat Members of the House DID vote AGAINST the Resolution.

A MINORITY of the Democrat Senators voted against the Resolution.

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

You seem to be the one with the petty quibble here.

You accused the guy of not being factually accurate when he in fact was being factually accurate.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. <----Irrefutable fact.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

It is also accurate the a majority of democrats in congress voted for obamacare, the worst piece of legislation in the history of the USA.....

That's what Porky Limbaugh said, huh??​

 

[Article 15]

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

It is also accurate the a majority of democrats in congress voted for obamacare, the worst piece of legislation in the history of the USA, so whats your point?

That Liability's claim that his statement isn't factually accurate is erroneous.

That was pretty clear BTW, even for human potatoes.

 

[BlindBoo]

The conclusion you propose does not follow from your limp premise.

President Bush was not bound by the questionable conclusions of Hans Blix in making his own determination. There was NO such condition imposed in the Resolution passed by Congress.

Further, the President did not reneg on any obligations to the UN. Nor did he "destroy" what his father had worked to achieve. IF anything, the US action finally gave some teeth to the ineffectual body laughingly known as the United Nations.

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.

(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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

The Bush Administration did vote in favor of UNSCR 1441 and renigged on it's obligation.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

GHWB- https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/why-we-didnt-invade-iraq-by-george-h-w-bush-in-1998.200976/

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

Funny you missed this part too.....

...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.

The resolution was being enforce and was successfully carrying out the mission of 1441. Congress did nothing. I blame them slightly less than I blame the President. It cannot be denied that Iraq posed no serioius threat to the worlds remaining super power and was not involved in 9-11.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ah, yes.....Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait!!!

Yeah....we really took a strong stand on that one!!!​

That whole episode was a farce. The Iraqi people have paid the price, the American people have paid the price, and now Bush and Republicans have paid the price. Who profited? Was it all for the oil companies, the military contractors, votes, a place in history, what in the world was it about? WHY?

we can ask the same question about afghanistan. why are we sending our kids to that hellhole to get their arms and legs blown off? we all know that when we finally leave that country will revert to the corrupt leftist jihadist place that it was before we got there.

Why has this country not been able to learn the lesson of viet nam?

Hell....Vietnam was ALL-about caving to Chuck De Gaulle....giving Vietnam BACK (to the French; post WWII)....to secure France's alliance....

....thru-out the Cold War!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT90Qu55O4U]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 2 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erf52WGnM4g]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 3 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdMhaypD5wU]Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 4 - YouTube[/ame]


We FUCKED the Vietnamese!!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

as someone said earlier, liberals are not interested in facts, facts screw up their talking points.

That's......

....what PORKY LIMBAUGH said....

....huh??​

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

(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.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

The Bush Administration did vote in favor of UNSCR 1441 and renigged on it's obligation.

"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

GHWB- https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/why-we-didnt-invade-iraq-by-george-h-w-bush-in-1998.200976/

You apparently cannot read. OR perhaps you just lack comprehension.

He is authorized to do things FOR reasons. ONE of the reasons was to "(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

He chose to use that authority to effectuate the objectives, but that does NOT mean that he was bound by the "findings" of Hans Blix. The findings of Hans Blix were simply NOT a precondition imposed on his use of the now granted authority.

Funny you missed this part too.....

...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.

The resolution was being enforce and was successfully carrying out the mission of 1441. Congress did nothing. I blame them slightly less than I blame the President. It cannot be denied that Iraq posed no serioius threat to the worlds remaining super power and was not involved in 9-11.

The resolution was not being enforceD. It was not yet known that it was "successfully" carrying out the alleged "mission" of 1441.

It is denied that Iraq posed no serious threat to us. By being the predominant destablizing influence in that region, a madman like Saddam was properly viewed as a threat not just to his neighbors and to our regional interests, but he was ALSO seen as a threat to his own people.

And while it was not even CLAIMED that Saddam had a direct hand in the 9/11/2001 atrocities, it absolutely WAS claimed (and it was true) that Saddam's Iraq had links to al qaeda and to terrorists in general.

Let's not be selective in what we choose to quote. Let us instead see the litany of reasons which Congress relied upon to AUTHORIZE the President's use of our nation's military against Saddam's Iraq.

Joint Resolution


To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - [H.J. Res. 114]>>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

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;

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'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

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.

(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.
* * * *

I know a blindbooboo-prone error-infested guy like you will ignore all those "Whereas" clauses, but they actually are kind of the BASIS for the action taken by Congress to GRANT authority to the President.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the lower house known as the House of Representatives and the upper house known as the Senate.

So again, his statement was factually accurate.

A petty quibble.

Let's say that ALL members of the GOP vote for a bill in both the House and the Senate. [This takes the GOP part of the discussion out of it.]

The MAJORITY of Democrat Representatives in the House vote AGAINST the bill.

The majority of Democrat Senators vote FOR the bill.

The fact that it passed the Senate does not guarantee that a bill passes. It can happen that a few more Democrat Representatives in the House would have to have voted FOR the bill for it to have passed.

It doesn't "pass" by counting the total number of Democrat votes.

If it fails, it doesn't fail by counting the total number of Democrat votes, either.

With that clearly in mind: A majority of Democrat HOUSE members voted against the Resolution authorizing the war.

A majority of Democrat Senators voted FOR that Resolution.

Adding the number of Democrats in both chambers doesn't change that outcome. It makes no difference, in fact, when you add the vote tally of Democrat Senators to the vote tally of Democrat Representatives. You get a number that is totally irrelevant.

You seem to be the one with the petty quibble here.

You accused the guy of not being factually accurate when he in fact was being factually accurate.

The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq. <----Irrefutable fact.

No. An you refer to an irrelevant factoid.

A minority of Democrat HOUSE members voted for the Resolution.

But a majority of Democrat Senators voted for the Resolution.

And you still point to nothing of any value by adding those two numbers together.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

March 20, 2013

KARMA TIME!!!!
(...And, "conservatives" punked-out!!)​

"In the spring of 2003 Shinseki chose, however, not to engage in a protracted war of words with Rumsfeld. Instead, he stuck to his position on what was needed in Iraq and waited until his Pentagon retirement ceremony in June 2003 to make his case that in the wake of 9/11, America needed more boots on the ground to meet its global responsibilities.

"Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army," Shinseki told his Pentagon audience and then went on to compare America's war in Iraq with the war he knew as a junior officer in Vietnam. "The lessons I learned in Vietnam are always with me," Shinseki stressed, "lessons about loyalty, about taking care of the people who sacrifice the most."

Both President Bush and Rumsfeld made a point of not attending Shinseki's retirement ceremony, and the New York Times buried its account of Shinseki's retirement speech on page 32 of the news section."

 

[Nole]

facts are there people, and I would bet good money that Obama who won the past two elections because of Bush II and his decisions. Ill go out on a limb and say the mistakes made from 2000-2008 under a GOP President will continue to cost the GOP elections.

Keep thinking the Democrats were the main instigators, thats for the GOP echo chamber. Most Americans know better and the past few elections prove exactly that. For all intents and purposes Obama should have gotten clobbered this past November.... Bush II, the gift that keeps on giving.