NGO: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld found guilty of war crimes

[Billo_Really]

Count one: Apparently 'the decider' got the Congress to agree with him.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.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.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

HR114 was conditional, it wasn't a blank check.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.​

There was no threat to the US and not complying with 1441 mandates (see below), is not enforcement of that document.

Count two:

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

Since the UN resolution 1441 clearly stated that Iraq was in material breach, the ceasefire agreed to in Resolution 687 was no longer in effect.

I paraphrase, Hans Blix report that he still had not verified the destruction of WMD's as declared by the Iraqis but he was hopeful that he would do so. Someday, maybe!

First off, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter"? Because that refers to what they said right after they decided Iraq was in material breach of 687...

Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

...which means that Iraq must be declared in material breach of 1441 for further action to be taken. And just who's responsibility is to determine that? Not Bush. He's the leader of a member state. And 1441 clearly states...

Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates

and​

Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations

and​

Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

...so when Bush unilaterally decided for the UNSC, that's not support of the resolution; that's not submitting a report of any violations; and that's not allowing the UNSC to review such a report.

When they say they will remain siezed on the matter, they are saying that THEY WILL DECIDE, not the decider, what coarse of action will be taken next.

As far as Hans Blix, his last report to the UNSC, he specifically stated that when he said he hadn't found any evidence of WMD's, that should not be construed as Iraq in breach of not providing information as to their locations. Bottom line is there was no reason to rush to war. No reason why we couldn't of let UN inspectors stay the coarse and finish their mission. No reason to spend a trillion dollars of US tax payer money in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit to average American's.

When you look at the cost of what this nation paid out and what it got in return, any person considering himself an American patriot, would be very, very pissed off!

I also found this on the War Powers Act:

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Regan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action, and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.

I stand corrected on my mention of the War powers act. Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, whereas your hero has ignored it TWICE in 3 years. Now we know who "the decider" really is don't we.

Obama's not my hero. I withdrew support 18 months after his inaugaration when it became apparent he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda. And Bush did not get congressional approval for war, as stated above, congressional approval was conditional and Bush never provided those conditions.

And lastly, although those presidents did, they didn't have the Constitutional authority to disregard an act of legislation by Congress. They have veto power when it comes to signing legislation, but when Congress makes a law, it is the executive branches job to enforce it. Only SCOTUS can shoot down congressional legislation.

 

[daveman]

It's about time these treasonous dogs were brought to justice.

This isn't justice. It's a left-wing circle jerk.

 

[Kondor3]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld war crimes? Is THAT old rag still being waved-about by fanatics?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Count one: Apparently 'the decider' got the Congress to agree with him.

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.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.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

HR114 was conditional, it wasn't a blank check.

There was no threat to the US and not complying with 1441 mandates (see below), is not enforcement of that document.

First off, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter"? Because that refers to what they said right after they decided Iraq was in material breach of 687...

...which means that Iraq must be declared in material breach of 1441 for further action to be taken. And just who's responsibility is to determine that? Not Bush. He's the leader of a member state. And 1441 clearly states...
...so when Bush unilaterally decided for the UNSC, that's not support of the resolution; that's not submitting a report of any violations; and that's not allowing the UNSC to review such a report.

When they say they will remain siezed on the matter, they are saying that THEY WILL DECIDE, not the decider, what coarse of action will be taken next.

As far as Hans Blix, his last report to the UNSC, he specifically stated that when he said he hadn't found any evidence of WMD's, that should not be construed as Iraq in breach of not providing information as to their locations. Bottom line is there was no reason to rush to war. No reason why we couldn't of let UN inspectors stay the coarse and finish their mission. No reason to spend a trillion dollars of US tax payer money in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit to average American's.

When you look at the cost of what this nation paid out and what it got in return, any person considering himself an American patriot, would be very, very pissed off!

I also found this on the War Powers Act:

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Regan in 1981 by sending military to El Salvador, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action, and again when troops entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden.

I stand corrected on my mention of the War powers act. Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, whereas your hero has ignored it TWICE in 3 years. Now we know who "the decider" really is don't we.

Obama's not my hero. I withdrew support 18 months after his inaugaration when it became apparent he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda. And Bush did not get congressional approval for war, as stated above, congressional approval was conditional and Bush never provided those conditions.

And lastly, although those presidents did, they didn't have the Constitutional authority to disregard an act of legislation by Congress. They have veto power when it comes to signing legislation, but when Congress makes a law, it is the executive branches job to enforce it. Only SCOTUS can shoot down congressional legislation.

Well I see that Too Tall conceded defeat to me that Eisenhower got us into vietnam and LBJ esculated the war with his phony Gulf of tonkin incident that he and the CIA staged in early 1965 after being elected which brought in COMBAT troops in droves even more so than when they were first brought in by him in march 1964 two months later after he took office and that Eisenhowers policys reemered when Johnson took office continuing his policys that Eisenhower had given to the military in his last year reversing Kennedys policy to completely withdraw by 1965.

Now that he has conceded that Eisenhowers got us into vietnam and LBj esculated the war and Kennedy did not implement Ikes policys but they were later implemented and carried out by LBj with his staged Gulf of tonkin incident and he was the one who esculated the war,now that he has conceded THAT,he has now jumped to this topic only to get his ass handed to him on a platter on this discussion as well..

Thats happens anytime DUNCEMAN puts in a thank for for this useful post. well now that he has been taken to school and educated by myself and this poster as well,class is dismissed and its time to leave this thread now,.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld war crimes? Is THAT old rag still being waved-about by fanatics?

they committed them alright,its not our fault that people like you,Dunceman and Too Tall are afraid of the truth and dont want to look at the evidence. the fact that you deny reality makes you a nutcase. they all proffitted from the war idiot.If you would turn off the lidiot box in the living room that you worship and do some research you would know that to be true.

 

[Liability]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld war crimes? Is THAT old rag still being waved-about by fanatics?

they committed them alright,its not our fault that people like you,Dunceman and Too Tall are afraid of the truth and dont want to look at the evidence. the fact that you deny reality makes you a nutcase. they all proffitted from the war idiot.If you would turn off the lidiot box in the living room that you worship and do some research you would know that to be true.

There is no evidence.

It's just another shit-head baseless claim by morons of your insignificant stature.

I don't mind that you believe such shit with no basis in reality. But you keep confusing YOUR drooling imbecile baseless opinions for "facts."

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Fart and poop post in 5... 4... 3...

 

[Billo_Really]

Well I see that Too Tall conceded defeat to me that Eisenhower got us into vietnam and LBJ esculated the war with his phony Gulf of tonkin incident that he and the CIA staged in early 1965 after being elected which brought in COMBAT troops in droves even more so than when they were first brought in by him in march 1964 two months later after he took office and that Eisenhowers policys reemered when Johnson took office continuing his policys that Eisenhower had given to the military in his last year reversing Kennedys policy to completely withdraw by 1965.

Now that he has conceded that Eisenhowers got us into vietnam and LBj esculated the war and Kennedy did not implement Ikes policys but they were later implemented and carried out by LBj with his staged Gulf of tonkin incident and he was the one who esculated the war,now that he has conceded THAT,he has now jumped to this topic only to get his ass handed to him on a platter on this discussion as well..

Thats happens anytime DUNCEMAN puts in a thank for for this useful post. well now that he has been taken to school and educated by myself and this poster as well,class is dismissed and its time to leave this thread now,.

I don't want to split hairs, but it wasn't Eisenhower who started the Vietnam War.

It was the French!

 

[Liability]

Well I see that Too Tall conceded defeat to me that Eisenhower got us into vietnam and LBJ esculated the war with his phony Gulf of tonkin incident that he and the CIA staged in early 1965 after being elected which brought in COMBAT troops in droves even more so than when they were first brought in by him in march 1964 two months later after he took office and that Eisenhowers policys reemered when Johnson took office continuing his policys that Eisenhower had given to the military in his last year reversing Kennedys policy to completely withdraw by 1965.

Now that he has conceded that Eisenhowers got us into vietnam and LBj esculated the war and Kennedy did not implement Ikes policys but they were later implemented and carried out by LBj with his staged Gulf of tonkin incident and he was the one who esculated the war,now that he has conceded THAT,he has now jumped to this topic only to get his ass handed to him on a platter on this discussion as well..

Thats happens anytime DUNCEMAN puts in a thank for for this useful post. well now that he has been taken to school and educated by myself and this poster as well,class is dismissed and its time to leave this thread now,.

I don't want to split hairs, but it wasn't Eisenhower who started the Vietnam War.

It was the French!

lameboi lives up to his name. a lame post ^ in response to a babbling simpleton.

 

[Intense]

a non-governmental organization established under the laws of Malaysia'



You are a freak.

You didn't even read my comment, did you.

I never read your comments. They are ignorant.

In BD's defense she came out against the Ruling.

 

[Peach]

I find Malaysia guilty of criminal vapidity and sentence them to continued backwardness and general irrelevance.

And I pass sentence on the NGO. I fart in their general direction.

I think you are correct on irrelevance. No jurisdiction to begin with.

 

[Too Tall]

Count one: Apparently 'the decider' got the Congress to agree with him.

HR114 was conditional, it wasn't a blank check.

There was no threat to the US and not complying with 1441 mandates (see below), is not enforcement of that document.

First off, do you know what the UNSC means when they end a resolution with the words "Decides to remain seized of the matter"? Because that refers to what they said right after they decided Iraq was in material breach of 687...

...which means that Iraq must be declared in material breach of 1441 for further action to be taken. And just who's responsibility is to determine that? Not Bush. He's the leader of a member state. And 1441 clearly states...
...so when Bush unilaterally decided for the UNSC, that's not support of the resolution; that's not submitting a report of any violations; and that's not allowing the UNSC to review such a report.

When they say they will remain siezed on the matter, they are saying that THEY WILL DECIDE, not the decider, what coarse of action will be taken next.

As far as Hans Blix, his last report to the UNSC, he specifically stated that when he said he hadn't found any evidence of WMD's, that should not be construed as Iraq in breach of not providing information as to their locations. Bottom line is there was no reason to rush to war. No reason why we couldn't of let UN inspectors stay the coarse and finish their mission. No reason to spend a trillion dollars of US tax payer money in someone else's god-damn country with no direct benefit to average American's.

When you look at the cost of what this nation paid out and what it got in return, any person considering himself an American patriot, would be very, very pissed off!

I also found this on the War Powers Act:

I stand corrected on my mention of the War powers act. Bush got congressional approval for Iraq, whereas your hero has ignored it TWICE in 3 years. Now we know who "the decider" really is don't we.

Obama's not my hero. I withdrew support 18 months after his inaugaration when it became apparent he was going to continue the neocon foreign policy agenda. And Bush did not get congressional approval for war, as stated above, congressional approval was conditional and Bush never provided those conditions.

And lastly, although those presidents did, they didn't have the Constitutional authority to disregard an act of legislation by Congress. They have veto power when it comes to signing legislation, but when Congress makes a law, it is the executive branches job to enforce it. Only SCOTUS can shoot down congressional legislation.

Well I see that Too Tall conceded defeat to me that Eisenhower got us into vietnam and LBJ esculated the war with his phony Gulf of tonkin incident that he and the CIA staged in early 1965 after being elected which brought in COMBAT troops in droves even more so than when they were first brought in by him in march 1964 two months later after he took office and that Eisenhowers policys reemered when Johnson took office continuing his policys that Eisenhower had given to the military in his last year reversing Kennedys policy to completely withdraw by 1965.

Now that he has conceded that Eisenhowers got us into vietnam and LBj esculated the war and Kennedy did not implement Ikes policys but they were later implemented and carried out by LBj with his staged Gulf of tonkin incident and he was the one who esculated the war,now that he has conceded THAT,he has now jumped to this topic only to get his ass handed to him on a platter on this discussion as well..

Thats happens anytime DUNCEMAN puts in a thank for for this useful post. well now that he has been taken to school and educated by myself and this poster as well,class is dismissed and its time to leave this thread now,.

I pointed out that there were 741 advisers in Vietnam when JFK took office and 16,300 when he was killed. That was not a continuation of Ike's policy, but it was virtually a declaration of wa by JFK. I don't consider that a concession.

The French had been at war for years in Vietnam and Ike supported them with a token force of advisers, primarily because they were an ally.

It is good that you left this thread, since your disinformation is quite boring.

 

[Billo_Really]

I pointed out that there were 741 advisers in Vietnam when JFK took office and 16,300 when he was killed. That was not a continuation of Ike's policy, but it was virtually a declaration of wa by JFK. I don't consider that a concession.

The French had been at war for years in Vietnam and Ike supported them with a token force of advisers, primarily because they were an ally.

It is good that you left this thread, since your disinformation is quite boring.

Now that your done with your business with 9/11 inside job, do you care to comment on what I said?

 

[Billo_Really]

lameboi lives up to his name. a lame post ^ in response to a babbling simpleton.

Did you come up with that all by yourself, or did you have help?

 

[daveman]

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld war crimes? Is THAT old rag still being waved-about by fanatics?

they committed them alright,its not our fault that people like you,Dunceman and Too Tall are afraid of the truth and dont want to look at the evidence. the fact that you deny reality makes you a nutcase. they all proffitted from the war idiot.If you would turn off the lidiot box in the living room that you worship and do some research you would know that to be true.

I've seen your "evidence". It's as laughable as you are.

 

[daveman]

Thats happens anytime DUNCEMAN puts in a thank for for this useful post. well now that he has been taken to school and educated by myself and this poster as well,class is dismissed and its time to leave this thread now,.

You're making statements you lack the horsepower to back up, boy.