When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Billo_Really]

Your first point is indecipherable babble. The UN did not speak of regime change. Nobody said they did. Thus, that fake "topic" is of no interest to me.

I didn't say that the Regime Change Resolution from the Bubba Administration days authorized the use of force. However, it was cited by Congress in the Bush Administration days' Resolution that DID authorize the use of force. You can bet your filthy ass that I wont let you forget that fact.

Do you have any intelligent comments to offer or are you planning on continuing to just toss further irrelevancies into the mix?

The resolution in the Bush Ad set conditions for military action that Bush ignored.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I couldn't give a rat's twat if the UN ever said any such thing.

Congress did.

That's all that matters. And they did it before President Bush was elected. The President at the time was Bubba.

Then stop using the resolutions as one of your excuses, mother-fucker!

Listen ass breath, I don't take instructions from a stupid rat **** like you, first of all.

And I will go ahead and cite the Resolutions passed by Congress to my heart's content you motherfucking idiot. Those are the only things that DO matter.

Now, please go fuck yourself with a rasp up your filthy ass, you lowlife cretin.

Then bathe in alcohol and salt.

Repeat frequently.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Your first point is indecipherable babble. The UN did not speak of regime change. Nobody said they did. Thus, that fake "topic" is of no interest to me.

I didn't say that the Regime Change Resolution from the Bubba Administration days authorized the use of force. However, it was cited by Congress in the Bush Administration days' Resolution that DID authorize the use of force. You can bet your filthy ass that I wont let you forget that fact.

Do you have any intelligent comments to offer or are you planning on continuing to just toss further irrelevancies into the mix?

The resolution in the Bush Ad set conditions for military action that Bush ignored.

Wrong you maggot lying piece of rat twat.

You just do not agree with his assessments.

Who cares? That doesn't mean that he ignored anything, you rancid lying pustule.

Are you ever able to post anything factual or must you always just try to foist off your ignorant asshole opinions as "facts?"

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013

For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.​

At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War."

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime became official U.S. policy in 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act—a bill passed 360-38 by the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law called for training and equipping Iraqi dissidents to overthrow Saddam and suggested that the United Nations establish a war-crimes tribunal for the dictator and his lieutenants.

The legislation was partly the result of frustration over the undeclared and relatively unheralded "No-Fly Zone War" that had been waged since 1991. Saddam's military repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft that were attempting to prevent his regime from destroying Iraqi opposition forces in northern and southern Iraq.

According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Hugh Shelton, in 1997 a key member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet (thought by most observers to have been Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) asked Gen. Shelton whether he could arrange for a U.S. aircraft to fly slowly and low enough that it would be shot down, thereby paving the way for an American effort to topple Saddam. Kenneth Pollack, a member of Mr. Clinton's National Security Council staff, would later write in 2002 that it was a question of "not whether but when" the U.S. would invade Iraq. He wrote that the threat presented by Saddam was "no less pressing than those we faced in 1941."


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Stephen Knott: When Everyone Agreed About Iraq - WSJ.com

It is amusing that there are people on both sides if the aisle to blinded by partisan emotion to realize that Reagan, Clinton, that sleazy little halfwit from Tejas and Obama are all corporatists, and that the difference between them is what corporations own them.

It is hilarious that neither side can admit the truth about Clinton, a degenerate who was more of a locked down ReagaNUT than the Bobbleheaded One himself was. Clinton's intervention in Kosova saved the most important heroin route on earth. Kosova probably handles 80% of westbound traffic and there is no way to know how much of that passes through Clinton's other intervention in Greater Serbia.

But the headline "When everyone agreed on Iraq" is laugh out loud funny. There has never been a second "everyone agreed on Iraq." Not in the last ten thousand years anyway.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013

For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.​

At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War."

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime became official U.S. policy in 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act—a bill passed 360-38 by the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law called for training and equipping Iraqi dissidents to overthrow Saddam and suggested that the United Nations establish a war-crimes tribunal for the dictator and his lieutenants.

The legislation was partly the result of frustration over the undeclared and relatively unheralded "No-Fly Zone War" that had been waged since 1991. Saddam's military repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft that were attempting to prevent his regime from destroying Iraqi opposition forces in northern and southern Iraq.

According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Hugh Shelton, in 1997 a key member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet (thought by most observers to have been Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) asked Gen. Shelton whether he could arrange for a U.S. aircraft to fly slowly and low enough that it would be shot down, thereby paving the way for an American effort to topple Saddam. Kenneth Pollack, a member of Mr. Clinton's National Security Council staff, would later write in 2002 that it was a question of "not whether but when" the U.S. would invade Iraq. He wrote that the threat presented by Saddam was "no less pressing than those we faced in 1941."


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Stephen Knott: When Everyone Agreed About Iraq - WSJ.com

It is amusing that there are people on both sides if the aisle to blinded by partisan emotion to realize that Reagan, Clinton, that sleazy little halfwit from Tejas and Obama are all corporatists, and that the difference between them is what corporations own them.

It is hilarious that neither side can admit the truth about Clinton, a degenerate who was more of a locked down ReagaNUT than the Bobbleheaded One himself was. Clinton's intervention in Kosova saved the most important heroin route on earth. Kosova probably handles 80% of westbound traffic and there is no way to know how much of that passes through Clinton's other intervention in Greater Serbia.

But the headline "When everyone agreed on Iraq" is laugh out loud funny. There has never been a second "everyone agreed on Iraq." Not in the last ten thousand years anyway.

Zzzzzzz.

Broken record is broken.

 

[AmericanFirst]

When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

*

LIES BU$HCO Told Us...

You posting your personal perverted sexual practices is not a very smart reply. But then you have never been very smart.

 

[AmericanFirst]

147 Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization. Did they know something 'everyone' else didn't,

or did they just get lucky? Because they were right, and Bush, who made the final decision, was wrong.

No, you are wrong as they were. Saddam had a long time to get rid of wmd's. He had already proved he had them by using them on his own people. Idiots abound on the left.

 

[Billo_Really]

Listen ass breath, I don't take instructions from a stupid rat **** like you, first of all.

And I will go ahead and cite the Resolutions passed by Congress to my heart's content you motherfucking idiot. Those is the only things that DO matter.

Now, please go fuck yourself with a rasp up your filthy ass, you lowlife cretin.

Then bathe in alcohol and salt.

Repeat frequently.

I was referring to the UN resolutions you were using.

Do you have ADD or comprehension issues?

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong you maggot lying piece of rat twat.

You just do not agree with his assessments.

Who cares? That doesn't mean that he ignored anything, you rancid lying pustule.

Are you ever able to post anything factual or must you always just try to foist off your ignorant asshole opinions as "facts?"

I told you to read the resolution, dumbass, which shows military action was only authorized in the event Iraq was a threat to our national security and that was never the case.

 

[expatriate]

It remains now as before, a completely uninteresting and uninformative factoid. It is of no actual utility to the conversation. We don't decide whether a bill is passed or not by adding House vote tallies to Senate vote tallies.



Not at all. I am just averse to your appalling lack of logic and fascination with useless factoids.



And again, you are wrong. It cannot be a lie if the person saying it believed it, even if he was wrong. Words still have meaning (except apparently to you).

Was your little baby noggin bounced like a basketball at birth or did you come upon your brain damage later in life?

I am a democrat. I am PROUD of your "little factoid".
* * * *

It isn't my factoid. It's yours.

You can be proud of your own feces, too. That's not my concern. And I don't share your pride. It remains a completely irrelevant factoid.

not irrelevant at all. The majority of elected democrats did NOT support the resolution. The majority of DEMOCRATS across the country did not support going to war over a bogus WMD claim and a LIE about an AQ-Iraq pre-9/11 connection. Turns out, THEY were right, and if the republicans in congress had listened to that majority of democrats, and voted with them, we would NOT have wasted over a trillion dollars we did not have to spend, we would NOT have suffered nearly 40K casualties in that war, and the Iraqi people would not have had their numbers diminished by over 100K.

And... as I said, Bush most certainly DID lie when he claimed doubt did not exist concerning Saddam's supposed stockpiles of WMD's. Doubt always existed within the intelligence community and Bush was a LIAR to suggest otherwise.

AND... John Kerry NEVER called our troops terrorists and only hyper-partisan illiterate morons like you would continue to insist to the contrary. GFY. moron.

 

[expatriate]

147 Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization. Did they know something 'everyone' else didn't,

or did they just get lucky? Because they were right, and Bush, who made the final decision, was wrong.

No, you are wrong as they were. Saddam had a long time to get rid of wmd's. He had already proved he had them by using them on his own people. Idiots abound on the left.

no one is claiming that Iraq NEVER HAD WMD's... of COURSE we know he had them. We undoubtedly kept the receipts when Rummy SOLD them to him in the 80's to use against the Iranians. The issue was whether or not he had them after 9/11... the issue was whether or not he would give them to AQ to use against us. Any fool who understands the raison d'etre of Islamic wahabbist extremism KNOWS that it is the elimination of secular arab regimes which Saddam's was one. The idea that, even if he HAD HAD any WMD's, Saddam would give them to an organization formed for the purpose of his very own demise is absolutely ridiculous. In the wake of 9/11, our enemy was very clearly defined, and it was NOT the pan-arab, secular, baathist regime in Iraq, that's for sure. Invading Iraq while AQ was still a viable fighting force and their leader was on the loose would be like us invading Peru after the bombing of Pearl Harbor rather than going after Tojo and Japan.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Whereas if the Congress had been given the same breifing the President got on On Sept. 18, 2002 it is likely they would never have given the President the deciding power.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Listen ass breath, I don't take instructions from a stupid rat **** like you, first of all.

And I will go ahead and cite the Resolutions passed by Congress to my heart's content you motherfucking idiot. Those is the only things that DO matter.

Now, please go fuck yourself with a rasp up your filthy ass, you lowlife cretin.

Then bathe in alcohol and salt.

Repeat frequently.

I was referring to the UN resolutions you were using.

Do you have ADD or comprehension issues?

I don't read minds, especially those of lower life forms such as you. If you meant UN resolutions then try making it clear next time, you cockgobbling asshole.

Plus, you can't even keep track of the conversation. I didn't refer to the UN Resolutions EXCEPT in response to others who raised it.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about the UN Resolutions.

And nothing done by President Bush and America violated them anyway, you dicklicking twat rash.

Now get back to your rasp, you enema nozzle.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Whereas if the Congress had been given the same breifing the President got on On Sept. 18, 2002 it is likely they would never have given the President the deciding power.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction - Salon.com

A briefing from Tenet, the basis of which which the President rejected.

It is stupid (thus libs keep saying it) to claim that President Bush "knew" that Saddam had "no" WMDs.

A report citing dubious sources made that estimation.

That's all it was.

If Congress did not get THAT particular briefing "report," so what? There had already been MUCH in the way of questionable inforamtion claiming that Saddam had no WMDs. Congress knew THAT. YEt, they passed the Resolution just the same.

YOUR mere speculation is not exactly "history," blindone.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When everyone agreed about Iraq?

Some of you need to be reminded of our current president's opinion on Iraq at the time:

Barack Obama, Oct. 30, 2002

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

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

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

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

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Obama is the guy who got it exactly right. Not in hindsight, but before the fact.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't read minds, especially those of lower life forms such as you. If you meant UN resolutions then try making it clear next time, you cockgobbling asshole.

Stop bullshitting me! You fuckin' knew I was referring to UN resolutions, or you wouldn't have clarified you were referring to US resolutions.

Plus, you can't even keep track of the conversation. I didn't refer to the UN Resolutions EXCEPT in response to others who raised it.

You're so full of shit!





That doesn't look like you were responding to anyone, it looks like you were using UN resolutions as one of your bullshit excuses.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about the UN Resolutions.

Who gives a fuck what you give a fuck about...................fuckhead!

And nothing done by President Bush and America violated them anyway, you dicklicking twat rash.

Well, it didn't take long before you're back to using UN resolutions again. And yes, he did violate them. 1441 ended with the term "we remain siezed on the matter", which means any suspected violation of the resolution is to be referred back to the security counsel for review. Bush didn't do that.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I don't read minds, especially those of lower life forms such as you. If you meant UN resolutions then try making it clear next time, you cockgobbling asshole.

Stop bullshitting me! You fuckin' knew I was referring to UN resolutions, or you wouldn't have clarified you were referring to US resolutions.

Plus, you can't even keep track of the conversation. I didn't refer to the UN Resolutions EXCEPT in response to others who raised it.

You're so full of shit!





That doesn't look like you were responding to anyone, it looks like you were using UN resolutions as one of your bullshit excuses.

I couldn't give a flying fuck about the UN Resolutions.

Who gives a fuck what you give a fuck about...................fuckhead!

And nothing done by President Bush and America violated them anyway, you dicklicking twat rash.

Well, it didn't take long before you're back to using UN resolutions again. And yes, he did violate them. 1441 ended with the term "we remain siezed on the matter", which means any suspected violation of the resolution is to be referred back to the security counsel for review. Bush didn't do that.

Douche bag groin boi, you stupid bitch.

Pay attention. I RESPONDED to some other person bringing up UN Resolutions.

But I made reference, you fucking asshole, to the Iraq War Resolution.

Then YOU, being a model of imbecility and the inability to post coherently, made reference to unidentified Resolutions. I don't read minds, you pig fucker. Especially those, like yours, that are incapable of coherent thoughts.

Next, I set your entirely stupid ass straight.

Now you are crying like a stuck bitch.

STFU with that whining, you hapless helpless hopeless pussy.

If you want to try your hand at communication, try to achieve clarity.

By the way, you fucking dishonest hack shit for brain motherfucker, THIS was the post to which I had responded:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6982550-post88.html

Now get back to diddling your anus with a rasp, you scumbag prick dishonest propagandizing wannabe hack motherfucker.

 

[Redfish]

LOL, I think the last two posters are pissed at each other.

 

[Billo_Really]

Pay attention. I RESPONDED to some other person bringing up UN Resolutions.

You still used the UN resolutions as a "reason" to invade.

Quote: Originally Posted by IlarMeilyr
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."

Que pasa, mutha?

But I made reference, you fucking asshole, to the Iraq War Resolution.

Where does it say that?

Seems like you're the one who needs a little more clarity.

Then YOU, being a model of imbecility and the inability to post coherently, made reference to unidentified Resolutions. I don't read minds, you pig fucker. Especially those, like yours, that are incapable of coherent thoughts.

There is no way my response could of been confused with the US resolutions, unless you're a complete moron!

Allow me to demonstrate for your grade school level intelligence...




Where do you see US resolutions in that? Fuckin' idiot!

By the way, you fucking dishonest hack shit for brain motherfucker, THIS was the post to which I had responded:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6982550-post88.html

Doesn't change the fact that you used the UN resolutions as one of your reasons to invade.

Now fuck off, it's past your bedtime.

 

[U2Edge]

By STEPHEN F. KNOTT
March 17, 2013

For years before the war, a bipartisan consensus thought Saddam possessed WMD.​

At 5:34 a.m. on March 20, 2003, American, British and other allied forces invaded Iraq. One of the most divisive conflicts in the nation's history would soon be labeled " Bush's War."

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime became official U.S. policy in 1998, when President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act—a bill passed 360-38 by the House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate. The law called for training and equipping Iraqi dissidents to overthrow Saddam and suggested that the United Nations establish a war-crimes tribunal for the dictator and his lieutenants.

The legislation was partly the result of frustration over the undeclared and relatively unheralded "No-Fly Zone War" that had been waged since 1991. Saddam's military repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft that were attempting to prevent his regime from destroying Iraqi opposition forces in northern and southern Iraq.

According to former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Hugh Shelton, in 1997 a key member of President Bill Clinton's cabinet (thought by most observers to have been Secretary of State Madeleine Albright) asked Gen. Shelton whether he could arrange for a U.S. aircraft to fly slowly and low enough that it would be shot down, thereby paving the way for an American effort to topple Saddam. Kenneth Pollack, a member of Mr. Clinton's National Security Council staff, would later write in 2002 that it was a question of "not whether but when" the U.S. would invade Iraq. He wrote that the threat presented by Saddam was "no less pressing than those we faced in 1941."

There are two big problems with this article.

First, in early 2001 both Powell and Rice said that Saddam didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat. What changed?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_-HTjy-_w]Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice: Iraq has No WMDs and is Not a Threat - YouTube[/ame]

And second, I don't recall Iraq ever firing on our planes. The story was always, they locked on with their radar and we fired on them knocking out the installation.

I think what we have here is a piece of revisionist history!

What changed was new intelligence about the state of sanctions and weapons embargo during the year 1999,2000, and 2001. The sanctions and weapons embargo were starting to collapse. Also in 2001, China violated sanctions by helping rebuild and improve Iraqi air defenses. Saddam's black market selling of oil, went from less than 100 million dollars a year to several billion dollars a year by 2002.

Colin Powell, and Condeliza Rice are not actually quoted as saying Iraq was "NOT A THREAT". They never said that. Rather they repeated what had been true for most of the 1990s, that Saddam had not rebuilt a significant WMD capability and the sanctions and weapons embargo were in place and working to prevent him from rebuilding his capability.

Colin Powell and Condelza Rice are consumers of intelligence and they were simply repeating what was common during much of the 1990s. By new findings and intelligence would indicate big changes as to the true state of the containment components of sanctions and the weapons embargo. It was revealed that they were crumbling.

The erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo meant that the key means of containment against Saddam's regime were no longer working and could soon be gone. That would effectively end containment and would make invasion and regime change a necessity! It was the United States and other UN members obligation to PREVENT Saddam from ever rebuilding his conventional and unconventional military capabilities that he had prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The fact that there was intelligence that Saddam had WMD means the invasion actually came later than it should have. Luckily he did not have WMD at the time of the invasion which saved a lot of lives and allowed the United States to remove Saddam without the cost and complications fighting his forces armed with WMD would create!