FACT: Obama is GWB on Super Steriods, I told you people

[Dr.Drock]

The fact remains President Bush followed the constitution and asked the Congress for approval.

No he didn't. Congress didn't declare war, and haven't since world war 2. There's a reason why they didn't just approve of a budget in 1941, they declared war specifically, haven't since.

why do you Libs keep claiming that?
never mind, I know why, i is the very reason BHO got elected
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

I always like when people act like they're disagreeing, then provide a link to prove me right. Where did Congress declare war?

Oh and another thing, the blind idiotic assumptions about people won't get you far. I'm 100% certain you agree with Obama more often than I do and I'm 100% certain you're more liberal than I am.

 

[Truthmatters]

Where in that document is the declaration of war?


BTW THIS IS NOT OBAMA ITS THE UN

 

[Truthmatters]

Cant fight those facts can you

 

[The Gadfly]

Where in that document is the declaration of war?


BTW THIS IS NOT OBAMA ITS THE UN

Truth, there is NO requirement that any president act on a U/N. mandate (there's nothing forbidding it either). Right now, Obama is acting in accordance with the War Powers Act; no declaration of war is required, at this time.What's been done to this point appears to me to be both legal, and constitutional, and until it plays out, I am in favor of giving the president the latitude and flexibility to do what he thinks is necessary, within the prescribed legal and constitutional boundaries. Make no mistake, however; the Commander-in-Chief ordered this action, and will ultimately be accountable for its success or failure. The buck, as Harry Truman famously noted, stops on that desk in the Oval Office, not at the U.N.. With authority and discretion (which any president has a considerable amount of, and should) comes a corresponding responsibility. I'll give this action full support, until it has a chance to play out; but if it fails, I'll certainly demand that Obama be accountable.

 

[Truthmatters]

What about the other UN member participating in these actions?

They just dont exsist?

This is a UN action and is completely legal

 

[The Gadfly]

What about the other UN member participating in these actions?

They just dont exsist?

This is a UN action and is completely legal

That's not the point; it would be just as legal under U.S. law and the constitution. The U.N. has NO authority to order America's military forces into action; the POTUS does. The U.N has NO authority, (under U.S. law and the constitution), to stop any such action; the POTUS (and the Congress, after sixty days, as specified in the War Powers Act, and absent a congressional resolution authorizing the action) does.

Get this through your head; the U.N has NO standing under the constitution of the United States, to order the United States, or its armed forces, to do (or not do) anything whatsoever.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Um..no he's not.

He's just a more effective President.

I for one like the fact that more terrorists are being killed.

More effective?
so your a bush hater?
GWB had No child left behind
BHO has no teacher left behind
W = Medicare B
BHO = Obama-care
Tax policy = Ditto
Gitmo = Ditto
Drones attacking Pakistan: BHO is W on steroids
W = 150 billion in deficit spending
BHO = 1.5 trillion, same
GM
W = Loans with collateral 17 billion
BHO gives them 50-70 billion (GMAC, Etc...)
more effective?
W = Iraq with congress
BHO = Libya with U.N.

Bush lied to congress to get authorization to commit what amounts to a war crime, authorized the use of torture and oversaw the near collapse of the American Economy. All things near and dear to the hearts of Conservatives.

Obama's the man with the hip waders and shovel to get rid of the crap left by the Hero of Conservatives and Conservatism..George W. Bush.

Now that's some funny stuff. I hope you don't believe everything you typed, Sallow, especially that last statement.

 

[BlindBoo]

Now he bombs the very same place Reagan did with Tomahawk missiles in the 80s
Until recently the up-tick in predator drone attacks in Pakistan made W look like a saint.

And this "action" with Libya, Congress okay with this?
people forget that Congress approved the war with Iraq

I told yawl a week ago
BHO is GWB on steriods

GWB Lite, yeah sure, hardly on steriods however. We didn't have to hear a years worth of propaganda against Ol'Mo. Bush was a go it alone type, Obama wants to build a concensus.

Bush was not given a decaration of War by Congress. Congress gave him the power to determine if Iraq was a threat. And if he makes that determination he had their authorization to use military force. All those Congressmen/Women who voted to give GWB the deciding power should have all resigned because they disgraced America that day.

 

[JRK]

No he didn't. Congress didn't declare war, and haven't since world war 2. There's a reason why they didn't just approve of a budget in 1941, they declared war specifically, haven't since.

why do you Libs keep claiming that?
never mind, I know why, i is the very reason BHO got elected
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

I always like when people act like they're disagreeing, then provide a link to prove me right. Where did Congress declare war?

Oh and another thing, the blind idiotic assumptions about people won't get you far. I'm 100% certain you agree with Obama more often than I do and I'm 100% certain you're more liberal than I am.

What part of attack Iraq and then voting to fund it is not a declaration of war?
I mean you can attack Iraq, but you cannot go to war with them?
are you that desperate to keep the lies going?
you know I do not mind losing to the truth

 

[BlindBoo]

The fact remains President Bush followed the constitution and asked the Congress for approval.

No he didn't. Congress didn't declare war, and haven't since world war 2. There's a reason why they didn't just approve of a budget in 1941, they declared war specifically, haven't since.

why do you Libs keep claiming that?
never mind, I know why, i is the very reason BHO got elected
Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution - CNN

Bush did not follow the resolution, by not allowing UNSCR 1441 to be fully implemented. Congress should have confronted the President. Failing the country so badly after not confronting the President they should have resigned becasue they disgraced America. (Not to mention the 4000+ American lives they cost us.)

 

[JRK]

Now he bombs the very same place Reagan did with Tomahawk missiles in the 80s
Until recently the up-tick in predator drone attacks in Pakistan made W look like a saint.

And this "action" with Libya, Congress okay with this?
people forget that Congress approved the war with Iraq

I told yawl a week ago
BHO is GWB on steriods

GWB Lite, yeah sure, hardly on steriods however. We didn't have to hear a years worth of propaganda against Ol'Mo. Bush was a go it alone type, Obama wants to build a concensus.

Bush was not given a decaration of War by Congress. Congress gave him the power to determine if Iraq was a threat. And if he makes that determination he had their authorization to use military force. All those Congressmen/Women who voted to give GWB the deciding power should have all resigned because they disgraced America that day.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

What part of attack don't you understand?

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."




Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

This is 8 weeks before we invade
My friend denial is not a river in Egypt

 

[BlindBoo]

Now he bombs the very same place Reagan did with Tomahawk missiles in the 80s
Until recently the up-tick in predator drone attacks in Pakistan made W look like a saint.

And this "action" with Libya, Congress okay with this?
people forget that Congress approved the war with Iraq

I told yawl a week ago
BHO is GWB on steriods

GWB Lite, yeah sure, hardly on steriods however. We didn't have to hear a years worth of propaganda against Ol'Mo. Bush was a go it alone type, Obama wants to build a concensus.

Bush was not given a decaration of War by Congress. Congress gave him the power to determine if Iraq was a threat. And if he makes that determination he had their authorization to use military force. All those Congressmen/Women who voted to give GWB the deciding power should have all resigned because they disgraced America that day.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

What part of attack don't you understand?

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."




Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

This is 8 weeks before we invade
My friend denial is not a river in Egypt

And what was Blix's position on March 20th 2003?

 

[JRK]

GWB Lite, yeah sure, hardly on steriods however. We didn't have to hear a years worth of propaganda against Ol'Mo. Bush was a go it alone type, Obama wants to build a concensus.

Bush was not given a decaration of War by Congress. Congress gave him the power to determine if Iraq was a threat. And if he makes that determination he had their authorization to use military force. All those Congressmen/Women who voted to give GWB the deciding power should have all resigned because they disgraced America that day.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

What part of attack don't you understand?

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."




Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."

This is 8 weeks before we invade
My friend denial is not a river in Egypt

And what was Blix's position on March 20th 2003?

what did matter by then?
you think you just wake up one morning and say "well lets invade"
You know GWB has gotten the most un-fair treatment with this entire event of anyone person I have ever seen
1) Its Saddam fault
2) Its OBL and 19 insane Saudis fault
GWB gave Saddam 18 months to do the right thing for his people and his country. OBL brought it to a head
and no-one blames either

Thats nuts Blind-Boo. There comes a time in which one must look at his self in the mirror and said "What would I have done?"

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea i've been saying this for a long time too. I just don't see any real differences between the two. I know some of the loyal Hopey Changey sycophants desperately try to point out some differences,but these are only feeble attempts at best. Now Gaddafi is supposedly way worse than that Saddam Hussein guy. That sure is a weak and absurd argument in my opinion. If anything i would say the Iraq Wars supporters had a much stronger argument than the supporters of this War do.

Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and invaded Nations. Gaddafi has never invaded Nations and there is absolutely no evidence of "Genocide" either. This is a Libyan Civil War. Nothing more. We have no business being involved with their internal conflicts. Would we like it if Nations decided to bomb us because we were having internal strife? I'm guessing we wouldn't like that at all. These Bombings are just wrong. Period,end of story.

 

[JRK]

Yea i've been saying this for a long time too. I just don't see any real differences between the two. I know some of the loyal Hopey Changey sycophants desperately try to point out some differences,but these are only feeble attempts at best. Now Gaddafi is supposedly way worse than that Saddam Hussein guy. That sure is a weak and absurd argument in my opinion. If anything i would say the Iraq Wars supporters had a much stronger argument than the supporters of this War do.

Saddam Hussein gassed his own people and invaded Nations. Gaddafi has never invaded Nations and there is absolutely no evidence of "Genocide" either. This is a Libyan Civil War. Nothing more. We have no business being involved with their internal conflicts. Would we like it if Nations decided to bomb us because we were having internal strife? I'm guessing we wouldn't like that at all. These Bombings are just wrong. Period,end of story.

Another item that is up setting is to the left its personal
And God forbid you tell the truth to them. an entire generation has been lost to the non stop lies of the NY times, NBC etc....
Saddam had in reality 11 years to do the right thing, he never would and his own people hung him

 

[JRK]

um..no he's not.

He's just a more effective president.

I for one like the fact that more terrorists are being killed.

more effective?
So your a bush hater?
Gwb had no child left behind
bho has no teacher left behind
w = medicare b
bho = obama-care
tax policy = ditto
gitmo = ditto
drones attacking pakistan: Bho is w on steroids
w = 150 billion in deficit spending
bho = 1.5 trillion, same
gm
w = loans with collateral 17 billion
bho gives them 50-70 billion (gmac, etc...)
more effective?
W = iraq with congress
bho = libya with u.n.

bush lied to congress to get authorization to commit what amounts to a war crime, authorized the use of torture and oversaw the near collapse of the american economy. All things near and dear to the hearts of conservatives.

Obama's the man with the hip waders and shovel to get rid of the crap left by the hero of conservatives and conservatism..george w. Bush.

what crap

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bush,Obama,McCain? No real differences between the three. We just weren't given a real alternative last time around. I mean would McCain be bombing Libya right now if he were President? You bet ya. Hopefully we'll get real change in 2012. But i'm pessimistic about this happening.

 

[JRK]

Bush,Obama,McCain? No real differences between the three. We just weren't given a real alternative last time around. I mean would McCain be bombing Libya right now if he were President? You bet ya. Hopefully we'll get real change in 2012. But i'm pessimistic about this happening.

I do not dis agree much
GWb did not do really a bad job
9-11 would have thrown anyone a curve
and as far as Saddam goes, no matter what any-one says that problem had to be dealt with. One thing that come from that event you never hear nothing about was The base we had In Saudi closing
saving billions over time
really its the same we had in Iraq with thousands of troops instead of 10s of thousands (100s of thousands in Iraq really)
he got blame for Katrina but the truth was the Governor caused most of that as well as the mayor, and mother nature
The deficit spending prior to 08 was getting balanced
as far as the housing bubble, W getting the blame makes about as much sense as Obama getting the blame
Creating a way we could turn these mortgages into a piece of paper that could be traded on the NYSE was nuts (shorted)
and if Glass Se gall caused that the the GOP/Dem congress in 98 as well as Clinton could have never seen what greed was going to do here
W did nothing wrong nor did he policies have anything to do with that collapse

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Bush,Obama,McCain? No real differences between the three. We just weren't given a real alternative last time around. I mean would McCain be bombing Libya right now if he were President? You bet ya. Hopefully we'll get real change in 2012. But i'm pessimistic about this happening.

I do not dis agree much
GWb did not do really a bad job
9-11 would have thrown anyone a curve
and as far as Saddam goes, no matter what any-one says that problem had to be dealt with. One thing that come from that event you never hear nothing about was The base we had In Saudi closing
saving billions over time
really its the same we had in Iraq with thousands of troops instead of 10s of thousands (100s of thousands in Iraq really)
he got blame for Katrina but the truth was the Governor caused most of that as well as the mayor, and mother nature
The deficit spending prior to 08 was getting balanced
as far as the housing bubble, W getting the blame makes about as much sense as Obama getting the blame
Creating a way we could turn these mortgages into a piece of paper that could be traded on the NYSE was nuts (shorted)
and if Glass Se gall caused that the the GOP/Dem congress in 98 as well as Clinton could have never seen what greed was going to do here
W did nothing wrong nor did he policies have anything to do with that collapse

You do make valid points. So thanks. I just don't see any real differences between Bush,Obama,and McCain. Especially when it comes to this Libya Bombing Campaign. I'm positive McCain & Bush would be bombing the shit out of Libya too. I just wish we had a real alternative in Elections. But i really am an optimist. So i think it will happen someday. I just hope i'm around to see it.

 

[JRK]

Bush,Obama,McCain? No real differences between the three. We just weren't given a real alternative last time around. I mean would McCain be bombing Libya right now if he were President? You bet ya. Hopefully we'll get real change in 2012. But i'm pessimistic about this happening.

I do not dis agree much
GWb did not do really a bad job
9-11 would have thrown anyone a curve
and as far as Saddam goes, no matter what any-one says that problem had to be dealt with. One thing that come from that event you never hear nothing about was The base we had In Saudi closing
saving billions over time
really its the same we had in Iraq with thousands of troops instead of 10s of thousands (100s of thousands in Iraq really)
he got blame for Katrina but the truth was the Governor caused most of that as well as the mayor, and mother nature
The deficit spending prior to 08 was getting balanced
as far as the housing bubble, W getting the blame makes about as much sense as Obama getting the blame
Creating a way we could turn these mortgages into a piece of paper that could be traded on the NYSE was nuts (shorted)
and if Glass Se gall caused that the the GOP/Dem congress in 98 as well as Clinton could have never seen what greed was going to do here
W did nothing wrong nor did he policies have anything to do with that collapse

You do make valid points. So thanks. I just don't see any real differences between Bush,Obama,and McCain. Especially when it comes to this Libya Bombing Campaign. I'm positive McCain & Bush would be bombing the shit out of Libya too. I just wish we had a real alternative in Elections. But i really am an optimist. So i think it will happen someday. I just hope i'm around to see it.

I agree.
i am hoping there is a Reagen conservative out there that uses more sense when it comes to how we deal with some questionable military events that occurred during his watch