Wounded warriors

[eddiew]

Wounded Warriors, St Judes....... along with numerous other philanthropic organizations play a vital role in assisting those in need, its the American Spirit, defines who we are as a nation. To constantly demand "let me keep my money and make the government responsible" is irresponsible, selfish, counter to what differentiates America from other nations. We as a people contribute more individually than any other nation. When one views the social and economic capacity to contribute back to the community its well documented that the largest contributors are those evil vile wealthy few that the liberal politicians constantly attack. The conduct of the government in caring for those that have laid their lives down in the service of their country, and to those that made the ultimate sacrifice, we as a Nation, people, have a moral and financial responsibility to care for their needs.

guess you didn't see the expose of WW on channel 2

 

[Iceweasel]

82 dems 215 pubs ,,,,,,,,now we know which slime is more to blame

Get a basic education dude. You are pathetic.

and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
can't you read??

The senate passed it with the help of the Dims, some key players too. We know who the president was. You've proven you are retarded.

 

[Staidhup]

Ladies and Gentleman this is not about who done it, its about Wounded Vets. Why is it that the liberal mouth pieces always detract from the issue and expect someone else to flip the bill and assume responsibility. These individuals stood in harms way to preserve or life liberty and way of life, for everyone, regardless of their political persuasion at the request of those we elected to lead the nation.

 

[Staidhup]

I don't watch TV except for sports, just read and listen to music. My opinions come directly from the material I read, not what some asshole on TV says.

 

[eddiew]

82 dems 215 pubs ,,,,,,,,now we know which slime is more to blame

Get a basic education dude. You are pathetic.

and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
can't you read??

The senate passed it with the help of the Dims, some key players too. We know who the president was. You've proven you are retarded.

Is it so hard for you to admit how ONE sided that vote was? Even a repub idiot should admit to that fact
OVERWHELMINGLY one sided

 

[eddiew]

I don't watch TV except for sports, just read and listen to music. My opinions come directly from the material I read, not what some asshole on TV says.

well didn't the material say only 60% goes to vets?? If not I suggest you get new material

 

[Iceweasel]

82 dems 215 pubs ,,,,,,,,now we know which slime is more to blame

Get a basic education dude. You are pathetic.

and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
can't you read??

The senate passed it with the help of the Dims, some key players too. We know who the president was. You've proven you are retarded.

Is it so hard for you to admit how ONE sided that vote was? Even a repub idiot should admit to that fact
OVERWHELMINGLY one sided

The major Dims voted for it, that's the point. Retard.

 

[CowboyTed]

I have to admit, I give to Wounded Warriors and St. Judes. I looked up their (W.W.) rating and they got a 3 out or 4 stars. I do think they have more resources to give to their wounded vets which is so important condsidering our VA Dept.

I read that only 60% goes to Vets with WW

better than the 10% that the Clinton foundation actually gives to the needy.

That statement is dead wrong...
Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

But Redfish talks 100% bullshit is a statistic that should be looked at... Another RW proven liar..

 

[eddiew]

82 dems 215 pubs ,,,,,,,,now we know which slime is more to blame

Get a basic education dude. You are pathetic.

and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
can't you read??

The senate passed it with the help of the Dims, some key players too. We know who the president was. You've proven you are retarded.

Is it so hard for you to admit how ONE sided that vote was? Even a repub idiot should admit to that fact
OVERWHELMINGLY one sided

The major Dims voted for it, that's the point. Retard.

major minor they all get one vote ,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Rustic]

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Wounded Warrior Project CEO Confirms Organization Is Anti-Gun and Anti-Knife

It looks to be anti gun, if so they are not worth the time of day...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So Clinton "was dead wrong" on his findings of WMDs and Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement. CLINTON said he violated the agreement and Clinton, Hillary, and Pelosi all said Saddam was insistent on pursuing WMDs.

Let me know when you are able to produce evidense that contradicts with what I provided, instead of looking like a complete idiot

shak I refuse to bat my head against a wall any longer Have a great day.....and when you see one of our heroes with 1 leg or arm don't blame the guy who did it to him blame clinton

BOTH Democrats AND Reoublicans made that decision to go to war. You haven't proved anything to the contrary. At least I know the Constitution and our system of government operates. Oh and yes, you are talking to a veteran who has served our country during the time of the gulf war.

Both shak?
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

I don't see where the vote was strictly on party lines with all democrats showing opposition even in that resolution. The Democrats did not stand as the "party of no". So Bush was able to show support from both parties who voted to go into Iraq, and both administrations supported regime change. Bush did not act unilaterally with executive order, and both administrations provided evidense to the Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement. You haven't provided anything to the contrary

where are the nukes the drones the yellow cake ,,,,besides the stuff so old that we gave him??
are you really going to state it was a necessary war and gwb was right?? really?

To support your argument that President Bush acted alone, you really have to prove the following:

1) That the Clinton administration never believed the WMDs existed, and that those findings he utilized were fabricated with the intent to mislead the American people.

2) That Saddam was in fact in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, and not a threat.

3) That Nancy Pelosi, who later would become speaker under Bush, was lying when she stated:
"Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"

4) That the weapons inspectors were negligent or fabricated their findings when they concluded the following:
"UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

5) Disprove the evidence provided to the UN by Hussein Kamal, son-inlaw of Saddam and organizer of Iraq's WMD program, confirming a stockpile of weapons to UNSCOM. A stockpile that included:
offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

(this among other damning evidence you never read from President Clinton's own speech)
SOURCE LINK :
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.Iraq/

Take notice that the source comes from CNN and not FoxNews.

Unless your responses are stating that CNN, along with the Clinton administration, is in a conspiracy with the republicans to fabricate a case for an attack on Iraq? There really comes a time when you just have to face the facts, unless you care to discredit each and every one of these points in your next reply?

There is just no fcats provided that President Bush, or the republicans acted aloneness this. NONE at all.

Move on Eddiew, no one here is buying your conspiracy theory delusions. Just you.

 

[eddiew]

shak I refuse to bat my head against a wall any longer Have a great day.....and when you see one of our heroes with 1 leg or arm don't blame the guy who did it to him blame clinton

BOTH Democrats AND Reoublicans made that decision to go to war. You haven't proved anything to the contrary. At least I know the Constitution and our system of government operates. Oh and yes, you are talking to a veteran who has served our country during the time of the gulf war.

Both shak?
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

I don't see where the vote was strictly on party lines with all democrats showing opposition even in that resolution. The Democrats did not stand as the "party of no". So Bush was able to show support from both parties who voted to go into Iraq, and both administrations supported regime change. Bush did not act unilaterally with executive order, and both administrations provided evidense to the Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement. You haven't provided anything to the contrary

where are the nukes the drones the yellow cake ,,,,besides the stuff so old that we gave him??
are you really going to state it was a necessary war and gwb was right?? really?

To support your argument that President Bush acted alone, you really have to prove the following:

1) That the Clinton administration never believed the WMDs existed, and that those findings he utilized were fabricated with the intent to mislead the American people.

2) That Saddam was in fact in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, and not a threat.

3) That Nancy Pelosi, who later would become speaker under Bush, was lying when she stated:
"Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"

4) That the weapons inspectors were negligent or fabricated their findings when they concluded the following:
"UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

5) Disprove the evidence provided to the UN by Hussein Kamal, son-inlaw of Saddam and organizer of Iraq's WMD program, confirming a stockpile of weapons to UNSCOM. A stockpile that included:
offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

(this among other damning evidence you never read from President Clinton's own speech)
SOURCE LINK :
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.Iraq/

Take notice that the source comes from CNN and not FoxNews.

Unless your responses are stating that CNN, along with the Clinton administration, is in a conspiracy with the republicans to fabricate a case for an attack on Iraq? There really comes a time when you just have to face the facts, unless you care to discredit each and every one of these points in your next reply?

There is just no fcats provided that President Bush, or the republicans acted aloneness this. NONE at all.

Move on Eddiew, no one here is buying your conspiracy theory delusions. Just you.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.

MORE PERSPECTIVESJAMES POULOS

Rand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate

SHIKHA DALMIA
Flint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.

And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."


In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.

And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)

Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.

The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.

This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

BOTH Democrats AND Reoublicans made that decision to go to war. You haven't proved anything to the contrary. At least I know the Constitution and our system of government operates. Oh and yes, you are talking to a veteran who has served our country during the time of the gulf war.

Both shak?
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

I don't see where the vote was strictly on party lines with all democrats showing opposition even in that resolution. The Democrats did not stand as the "party of no". So Bush was able to show support from both parties who voted to go into Iraq, and both administrations supported regime change. Bush did not act unilaterally with executive order, and both administrations provided evidense to the Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement. You haven't provided anything to the contrary

where are the nukes the drones the yellow cake ,,,,besides the stuff so old that we gave him??
are you really going to state it was a necessary war and gwb was right?? really?

To support your argument that President Bush acted alone, you really have to prove the following:

1) That the Clinton administration never believed the WMDs existed, and that those findings he utilized were fabricated with the intent to mislead the American people.

2) That Saddam was in fact in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, and not a threat.

3) That Nancy Pelosi, who later would become speaker under Bush, was lying when she stated:
"Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"

4) That the weapons inspectors were negligent or fabricated their findings when they concluded the following:
"UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

5) Disprove the evidence provided to the UN by Hussein Kamal, son-inlaw of Saddam and organizer of Iraq's WMD program, confirming a stockpile of weapons to UNSCOM. A stockpile that included:
offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

(this among other damning evidence you never read from President Clinton's own speech)
SOURCE LINK :
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.Iraq/

Take notice that the source comes from CNN and not FoxNews.

Unless your responses are stating that CNN, along with the Clinton administration, is in a conspiracy with the republicans to fabricate a case for an attack on Iraq? There really comes a time when you just have to face the facts, unless you care to discredit each and every one of these points in your next reply?

There is just no fcats provided that President Bush, or the republicans acted aloneness this. NONE at all.

Move on Eddiew, no one here is buying your conspiracy theory delusions. Just you.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.

MORE PERSPECTIVESJAMES POULOS

Rand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate

SHIKHA DALMIA
Flint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.

And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."


In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.

And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)

Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.

The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.

This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.

Read my reply, either you can provide specific facts to what I provided or you can't ... I'm not entertaining conspiracy theory propaganda opinion blogs. Your post contains no credible researched facts. You're boring me .

 

[Muhammed]

Oh for God's sake. I blame Obama for a lot, but the VA's done a great job getting homeless vets into housing. The SNAFU in getting their records has been cut. It's simply fantasy to say Obama doesn't care about Vets. He's actually managed to stop getting a lot of them killed for no good reason.

'
more American soldiers have been maimed or killed under Obama than under Bush.

when you you libs get your heads out of Barry's ass?

A carryover from the ME cancer you pubs and gwb gave us

BS. both parties voted to authorize and fund the Iraq fiasco. Everything Obama has done in them ME has made the situation worse, not better.

BOTH ??? care to tell us the vote on the fiasco that wouldn't have been IF NOT FOR GWB? All the vote did was give bush the ability to go to war He and he alone pulled the trigger

Actually we were at war in Iraq before GWB took office. GWB inherited the war from Clinton.

 

[eddiew]

Both shak?
Passage of the full resolution[edit]
Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002, in conjunction with the Administration's proposals,[3][8] H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133,[9] and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.[10] It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107–243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

United States House of Representatives[edit]
Party Yeas Nays Not
Voting
Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3

• 215 (96.4%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 82 (39.2%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
• 6 (<2.7%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
• 126 (~60.3%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
• The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
  • Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

I don't see where the vote was strictly on party lines with all democrats showing opposition even in that resolution. The Democrats did not stand as the "party of no". So Bush was able to show support from both parties who voted to go into Iraq, and both administrations supported regime change. Bush did not act unilaterally with executive order, and both administrations provided evidense to the Saddam's violation of the cease fire agreement. You haven't provided anything to the contrary

where are the nukes the drones the yellow cake ,,,,besides the stuff so old that we gave him??
are you really going to state it was a necessary war and gwb was right?? really?

To support your argument that President Bush acted alone, you really have to prove the following:

1) That the Clinton administration never believed the WMDs existed, and that those findings he utilized were fabricated with the intent to mislead the American people.

2) That Saddam was in fact in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, and not a threat.

3) That Nancy Pelosi, who later would become speaker under Bush, was lying when she stated:
"Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"

4) That the weapons inspectors were negligent or fabricated their findings when they concluded the following:
"UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

5) Disprove the evidence provided to the UN by Hussein Kamal, son-inlaw of Saddam and organizer of Iraq's WMD program, confirming a stockpile of weapons to UNSCOM. A stockpile that included:
offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

(this among other damning evidence you never read from President Clinton's own speech)
SOURCE LINK :
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.Iraq/

Take notice that the source comes from CNN and not FoxNews.

Unless your responses are stating that CNN, along with the Clinton administration, is in a conspiracy with the republicans to fabricate a case for an attack on Iraq? There really comes a time when you just have to face the facts, unless you care to discredit each and every one of these points in your next reply?

There is just no fcats provided that President Bush, or the republicans acted aloneness this. NONE at all.

Move on Eddiew, no one here is buying your conspiracy theory delusions. Just you.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.

MORE PERSPECTIVESJAMES POULOS

Rand Paul was the only Republican to have a good debate

SHIKHA DALMIA
Flint water victims can't sue the government. That's another crime.

And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."


In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.

And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)

Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.

The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.

This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.

Read my reply, either you can provide specific facts to what I provided or you can't ... I'm not entertaining conspiracy theory propaganda opinion blogs. Your post contains no credible researched facts. You're boring me .

1000's dead caused by a half a man a republican pos gwb and I bore you??? Go worship the garbage and make excuse for the murderers I won't try to penetrate your thick skull again

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have to admit, I give to Wounded Warriors and St. Judes. I looked up their (W.W.) rating and they got a 3 out or 4 stars. I do think they have more resources to give to their wounded vets which is so important condsidering our VA Dept.

what's sad about this is that we need charities to do what the government should be doing for our vets.

The current administration cares more about illegals than American vets. Its a disgrace.

Oh look! It's a Trump Talking Point Bitch.

 

[Moonglow]

Navy Relief is better. That's who I give to.

Is that where sailors go down to the dock and eat squids?

 

[Jackson]

I have to admit, I give to Wounded Warriors and St. Judes. I looked up their (W.W.) rating and they got a 3 out or 4 stars. I do think they have more resources to give to their wounded vets which is so important condsidering our VA Dept.

what's sad about this is that we need charities to do what the government should be doing for our vets.

The current administration cares more about illegals than American vets. Its a disgrace.

Oh look! It's a Trump Talking Point Bitch.

Oh Look! It's LoneLaugher Loser we laugh at! So we trade insults...that is probably what happens in Congress and nobody listens to one another.

One good point is that many anti Trump people claim he's a flip flopping Liberal. Maybe he really is and it's not just that he has changed his mind. Would it be better to have a firm Conservative President or man who understand the Liberal?

Maybe we need someone who can see both sides of an issue. Sanders doesn't have a background of any conservative viewpoints that I am aware of and it would be hard for him to reach across the aisle. We need someone in Congress and the Executive branch that listens to both viewpoints and can work a compromise.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I have to admit, I give to Wounded Warriors and St. Judes. I looked up their (W.W.) rating and they got a 3 out or 4 stars. I do think they have more resources to give to their wounded vets which is so important condsidering our VA Dept.

what's sad about this is that we need charities to do what the government should be doing for our vets.

The current administration cares more about illegals than American vets. Its a disgrace.

Oh look! It's a Trump Talking Point Bitch.

Oh Look! It's LoneLaugher Loser we laugh at! So we trade insults...that is probably what happens in Congress and nobody listens to one another.

One good point is that many anti Trump people claim he's a flip flopping Liberal. Maybe he really is and it's not just that he has changed his mind. Would it be better to have a firm Conservative President or man who understand the Liberal?

Maybe we need someone who can see both sides of an issue. Sanders doesn't have a background of any conservative viewpoints that I am aware of and it would be hard for him to reach across the aisle. We need someone in Congress and the Executive branch that listens to both viewpoints and can work a compromise.

You have that now.

 

[Jackson]

I have to admit, I give to Wounded Warriors and St. Judes. I looked up their (W.W.) rating and they got a 3 out or 4 stars. I do think they have more resources to give to their wounded vets which is so important condsidering our VA Dept.

what's sad about this is that we need charities to do what the government should be doing for our vets.

The current administration cares more about illegals than American vets. Its a disgrace.

Oh look! It's a Trump Talking Point Bitch.

Oh Look! It's LoneLaugher Loser we laugh at! So we trade insults...that is probably what happens in Congress and nobody listens to one another.

One good point is that many anti Trump people claim he's a flip flopping Liberal. Maybe he really is and it's not just that he has changed his mind. Would it be better to have a firm Conservative President or man who understand the Liberal?

Maybe we need someone who can see both sides of an issue. Sanders doesn't have a background of any conservative viewpoints that I am aware of and it would be hard for him to reach across the aisle. We need someone in Congress and the Executive branch that listens to both viewpoints and can work a compromise.

You have that now.

We are approaching an election where all of the players will be changing. Choice - Staunch Liberal without any conservative values or A "Conservative" who was known for leaning to the left in earlier years. Which one could likely make agreements with Congress?