Political history being re wrote as we watch

[JakeStarkey]

The US did not have the legal authority to enforce the UN restrictions. This is a lie of yours, JRK.

A GOP Congress was not going to impeach Bush, and a Dem Congress did not have the 2/3ds majority in the Senate.

And you lie about WMDs being "found" that meet the requirements of Bush and Powell's allegations.

You lie, period.

 

[BlindBoo]

DaGoose why?
1) 1998 congress with Clinton made it policy to rid the world of Saddam
2) 10/2002 congress said it again with the enforcement of UN sanctions being the trigger
3) 2002, Al Qaeda is ramping up in Iraq
4) Hans Blix states the UN sanctions are being ignored for the most part and boat loads Of weapons are missing that Iraq has documented exist, 1-2003

we invade 3-2003
Info that out of service WMDs are found is presented to congress, 2006
We oversee the sale of 550 metric tons of "yellow cake" from Iraq to Canada, 2008
end of arms agreement is signed in 2008, GWB initiated
we win 12-2011
we are done 12-2011
God bless the people who made it happen
That is Iraq, now can you tell me is this what the press has been reporting?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH lied people died

1998. The 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act made $5 million available for assistance to the “Iraqi democratic opposition.” The funds could be used “for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.” (Public Law 105-174, May 1, 1998) In a joint resolution, the House and Senate declared that “the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.” Congress went on to urge the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

Notice they didn't offer to use the military?

The two criteria for use of force was not met. Iraq did not pose an ongoing threat and didn't have anything to do with 9-11.

The only part of Iraq that had a al Queda cell before the invasion was in the Kurdish area protected by US/UK and French Planes.

All of Han Blix's statements to the UN can be found on the web. No need to paraphrase.

What did we win for all the years of the occupation. I mean sure the finiest military defeated the depleted Iraq army, such that it was.....but the occuption was FUBAR.

Boo I had you on ignore
when you called me liar for no reason I was notified
So what is your claim here?
the 1998 claim is a fact, I claimed nothing else. Your adding material to the thread that has nothing to do with what I said
Part of that 1998 , well here

"Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress
MORE ON THIS PAGE
Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 By Laurie Mylroie
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in ... REMOVE SADDAM" USA Today March 3, 1998 We can remove Saddam ...
why do you worry about Blix es comments for? there are some who do not know about those events sense the main stream media ignored them

what else do you claim I lied about?
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

 

[JRK]

1998. The 1998 Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act made $5 million available for assistance to the “Iraqi democratic opposition.” The funds could be used “for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.” (Public Law 105-174, May 1, 1998) In a joint resolution, the House and Senate declared that “the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations.” Congress went on to urge the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.”

Notice they didn't offer to use the military?

The two criteria for use of force was not met. Iraq did not pose an ongoing threat and didn't have anything to do with 9-11.

The only part of Iraq that had a al Queda cell before the invasion was in the Kurdish area protected by US/UK and French Planes.

All of Han Blix's statements to the UN can be found on the web. No need to paraphrase.

What did we win for all the years of the occupation. I mean sure the finiest military defeated the depleted Iraq army, such that it was.....but the occuption was FUBAR.

Boo I had you on ignore
when you called me liar for no reason I was notified
So what is your claim here?
the 1998 claim is a fact, I claimed nothing else. Your adding material to the thread that has nothing to do with what I said
Part of that 1998 , well here

"Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress
MORE ON THIS PAGE
Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 By Laurie Mylroie
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in ... REMOVE SADDAM" USA Today March 3, 1998 We can remove Saddam ...
why do you worry about Blix es comments for? there are some who do not know about those events sense the main stream media ignored them

what else do you claim I lied about?
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

 

[JakeStarkey]

JRK contineus to lie.

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo I had you on ignore
when you called me liar for no reason I was notified
So what is your claim here?
the 1998 claim is a fact, I claimed nothing else. Your adding material to the thread that has nothing to do with what I said
Part of that 1998 , well here

"Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress
MORE ON THIS PAGE
Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 By Laurie Mylroie
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in ... REMOVE SADDAM" USA Today March 3, 1998 We can remove Saddam ...
why do you worry about Blix es comments for? there are some who do not know about those events sense the main stream media ignored them

what else do you claim I lied about?
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

"1) 1998 congress with Clinton made it policy to rid the world of Saddam"

So you're saying you didn't post that?

 

[JRK]

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

"1) 1998 congress with Clinton made it policy to rid the world of Saddam"

So you're saying you didn't post that?

No I did not post it the way you originally stated I did
Boo you took the rest of that is taken out of context and you know it
you added the term death and to be honest one could say that was the intent of the policy statement was to remove him from the world as Clinton did bomb Iraq in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
first words in the act, that close enough for the term removal from world I would assume any-way
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Boo you can play this game all you want, I do not care. I am not trying to harm you or your reputation
enjoy it what ever it is your doing
back on ignore

 

[BlindBoo]

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

"1) 1998 congress with Clinton made it policy to rid the world of Saddam"

So you're saying you didn't post that?

No I did not post it the way you originally stated I did
Boo you took the rest of that is taken out of context and you know it
you added the term death and to be honest one could say that was the intent of the policy statement was to remove him from the world as Clinton did bomb Iraq in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
first words in the act, that close enough for the term removal from world I would assume any-way
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Boo you can play this game all you want, I do not care. I am not trying to harm you or your reputation
enjoy it what ever it is your doing
back on ignore

I copied what you posted verbatum. Furthermore I posted what the actions the bill approved. None of which was removal by military means.

You certainly can ignore me. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to do the same with your disengenous posts of half truths used to convey a false message. I will respond to everyone I find, mostly.

 

[JRK]

"1) 1998 congress with Clinton made it policy to rid the world of Saddam"

So you're saying you didn't post that?

No I did not post it the way you originally stated I did
Boo you took the rest of that is taken out of context and you know it
you added the term death and to be honest one could say that was the intent of the policy statement was to remove him from the world as Clinton did bomb Iraq in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
first words in the act, that close enough for the term removal from world I would assume any-way
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Boo you can play this game all you want, I do not care. I am not trying to harm you or your reputation
enjoy it what ever it is your doing
back on ignore

I copied what you posted verbatum. Furthermore I posted what the actions the bill approved. None of which was removal by military means.

You certainly can ignore me. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to do the same with your disengenous posts of half truths used to convey a false message. I will respond to everyone I find, mostly.

accusing me of things that never occurred is not responding
adding text
taking what I have wrote out of context

I would welcome a honest response as it relates to the subject matter boo, when are you going to start?

See I never said the 98 bill said anything about the military, you said that
Its every post Boo, you just cannot get it right
back on ignore

 

[idb]

JRK, you do realise that once you've put it on the internet it's there for ever don't you?
That gives people the chance to check back and see what you wrote.

 

[JRK]

JRK, you do realise that once you've put it on the internet it's there for ever don't you?
That gives people the chance to check back and see what you wrote.

that works both ways
have a good day

 

[idb]

JRK, you do realise that once you've put it on the internet it's there for ever don't you?
That gives people the chance to check back and see what you wrote.

that works both ways
have a good day

I'm comfortable with it.

 

[BlindBoo]

No I did not post it the way you originally stated I did
Boo you took the rest of that is taken out of context and you know it
you added the term death and to be honest one could say that was the intent of the policy statement was to remove him from the world as Clinton did bomb Iraq in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.
first words in the act, that close enough for the term removal from world I would assume any-way
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

Boo you can play this game all you want, I do not care. I am not trying to harm you or your reputation
enjoy it what ever it is your doing
back on ignore

I copied what you posted verbatum. Furthermore I posted what the actions the bill approved. None of which was removal by military means.

You certainly can ignore me. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to do the same with your disengenous posts of half truths used to convey a false message. I will respond to everyone I find, mostly.

accusing me of things that never occurred is not responding
adding text
taking what I have wrote out of context

I would welcome a honest response as it relates to the subject matter boo, when are you going to start?

See I never said the 98 bill said anything about the military, you said that
Its every post Boo, you just cannot get it right
back on ignore

I never accused you of anything.

You've admitted posting half truths.

I responded to what you posted.

You used the fact that the Clinton Administration signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 as part of your justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I merely pointed out that Act provided assistance for opposition groupsand did not suggest that the US military should get involved.

Anything else?

 

[JRK]

So wats wrong giving the part of the truth that never gets told?
50% truth is in all reality the part of an event thta has been left out. It tickles me anyone would see this as something that other than wat it is Boo

Do not go thru life looking for the bad, its all you will ever find

 

[idb]

So wats wrong giving the part of the truth that never gets told?
50% truth is in all reality the part of an event thta has been left out. It tickles me anyone would see this as something that other than wat it is Boo

Do not go thru life looking for the bad, its all you will ever find

Are you in space at the moment?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So wats wrong giving the part of the truth that never gets told?
50% truth is in all reality the part of an event thta has been left out. It tickles me anyone would see this as something that other than wat it is Boo

Do not go thru life looking for the bad, its all you will ever find

Are you in space at the moment?

Yes, we all see what JRK's posting only part of the truth is something "anyone would see" for what it is, distortion of the truth.

JRK goes through life trying to make bad things (Iraq War) and bad people (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc) as good things.

That narrative depends (1) on the whole story not 50%, and (2) an interpretation twisted to the facts.

JRK does nothing of the sort, knows he does nothing of the sort, and then whines when others properly slap him down.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Answer. The Guy who has to try and clean up after the worst president in modern day history, well next to Ronnie that is.......

Actually with respect to the worst president, when it comes to the state of the economy, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are fighting for that top slot. I never thought I'd ever see a President as bad as Carter, IF Obama gets re-elected [unfortunately for the rest of the country] he should easily claim that award.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Boo I had you on ignore
when you called me liar for no reason I was notified
So what is your claim here?
the 1998 claim is a fact, I claimed nothing else. Your adding material to the thread that has nothing to do with what I said
Part of that 1998 , well here

"Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress
MORE ON THIS PAGE
Iraq Liberation Act" introduced into Congress Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998 By Laurie Mylroie
It should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in ... REMOVE SADDAM" USA Today March 3, 1998 We can remove Saddam ...
why do you worry about Blix es comments for? there are some who do not know about those events sense the main stream media ignored them

what else do you claim I lied about?
H.R. 4655 - Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

Is that all anyone can focus on regarding President Bush is Iraq? That war cost taxpayers just over $800 Billion during his 8 years in office. President Obama wasted $787 Billion with just one stimulus bill that had no positive effect on the nations unemployment rate. Add to that you have Cash for Clunkers, another waste of taxpayer dollars. Solyndra received $535 million from this current administration before they went bankrupt. Raser Technology filed for chapter 11 after receiving $33 million grant from the Treasury Department, US Geothermal received $97 million loan from the Energy Department after not seeing a profit in 4 years. Talk about bad administrative policies, one oil disaster in the gulf was enough to create a moritorium with an investigation before any further drilling could be made. However, nothing here regarding a very poor investment made by this administration, before any more taxpayer dollars could be wasted into other "clean energy" corporations? Don't even bring up Katrina with President Bush, after Obama sat on his ass for months as the nation watched an uncontained oil spill reach the southeastern coastline. This was the biggest environmental oil disaster that took place, all under Obama's watch.

 

[JRK]

You prove my point. Clinton did not sign a bill in 1998 the sought Saddams death or removal from the world.

As previoulsy posted, Congress was very specific about the use of military force in Iraq.

Your less than half truths combined present the false narative you so vigoroiusly defend. When the whole truth is examine it(your false narative) fails.

Boo see that's not correct, you have made another false claim about me
I never claimed any-one said a bill that sought Saddam's death or removal from the world
are you in pre school? really? whats the purpose of being that far from accurate?
back on ignore until you do it again and I get notified, or just keep it up, every-one sees what your doing

Is that all anyone can focus on regarding President Bush is Iraq? That war cost taxpayers just over $800 Billion during his 8 years in office. President Obama wasted $787 Billion with just one stimulus bill that had no positive effect on the nations unemployment rate. Add to that you have Cash for Clunkers, another waste of taxpayer dollars. Solyndra received $535 million from this current administration before they went bankrupt. Raser Technology filed for chapter 11 after receiving $33 million grant from the Treasury Department, US Geothermal received $97 million loan from the Energy Department after not seeing a profit in 4 years. Talk about bad administrative policies, one oil disaster in the gulf was enough to create a moritorium with an investigation before any further drilling could be made. However, nothing here regarding a very poor investment made by this administration, before any more taxpayer dollars could be wasted into other "clean energy" corporations? Don't even bring up Katrina with President Bush, after Obama sat on his ass for months as the nation watched an uncontained oil spill reach the southeastern coastline. This was the biggest environmental oil disaster that took place, all under Obama's watch.

my point exactly
as you read my intro I talked about 5% UE, the recovery from the recession Clinton left us in 01 as well as Enron
we have lost 6 million jobs sense 2008. From 01-03 we had lost 2 million. GWB for 8 years was lied about, he still gets the worst preisdent in History with 8 years of 4-6% of UE, deficts whle the GOP held the purce strings avg 200 billion per year while fighting 2 wars that were not wars of choice
With the Iraq war over and a victory (we hear nothing about from the main stream) we are now spending 1.4 trillion more per year than we take in
we created 6 million jobs from 03-08 with the only stimulus going back to the very tax people who would later have to pay it back, the tax payer

BHO has chose the winners and losers, he has used close to a trillion dollars in giving the UAW, Teachers as well as other union based employees. Those gifts will be paid back by many of us who will never have seen 1 penny of that, unlike the billions that W refunded us in difficult times, none of his doing

Its been about failed policies, notthing else. History is being re wrote as we speak. come 2012 it will be in a very different place than it was in 2008

 

[Charles_Main]

5% UE
deficits in the 100 billions with 2 war, 7 major hurricanes, 2 recessions and 9-11
won Iraq
removed Saddam

And the left wing media still are trying to claim GWB was one of the worst. What does this make BHO?

Seriously

Also one of the worst.

 

[Charles_Main]

So wats wrong giving the part of the truth that never gets told?
50% truth is in all reality the part of an event thta has been left out. It tickles me anyone would see this as something that other than wat it is Boo

Do not go thru life looking for the bad, its all you will ever find

Are you in space at the moment?

Yes, we all see what JRK's posting only part of the truth is something "anyone would see" for what it is, distortion of the truth.

JRK goes through life trying to make bad things (Iraq War) and bad people (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc) as good things.

That narrative depends (1) on the whole story not 50%, and (2) an interpretation twisted to the facts.

JRK does nothing of the sort, knows he does nothing of the sort, and then whines when others properly slap him down.

So in your mind the Fact that we did indeed Remove Saddam is "a bad thing"

Or do you just deny that Bush did have lower Deficits (even when you add the cost of both Wars) than Obama, and dealt with 7 Major Hurricanes and the Single Worst Terrorist Attack on US soil ever?

Why is it you run around pretending you are a conservative? Every single time, on every single issue. You come down firmly on the left.