Did you Support War in Iraq??

[struth]

He voted to overthrow Saddam...and he, as I already highlighted...in the 90s, endorced ground troops

Not using US ground troops and going in to nation build.

you are lying by omission on the content of the 1998 Iraqi liberation act. Lying is what you do well.

And he only endorses ground troops through authorization of the UN. You were lying by omission every time you repeat this one too.

It’s a policy difference from Republicans and the bush administration. And the policy difference matters. So quit the lie.

Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion


“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”

 

[JoeB131]

Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion


“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”

Hey, maybe Republicans can all retire from politics, because they are never responsible for anything, according to you.

Biden didn't send troops into Iraq, Bush did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NOTE the words “IF NECESSARY”
BIDEN 2003 (Bush) must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.

BIDEN 1998

guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”

If you must go all the way back to 1998 to pick up on every single word a US senator says in a hearing, why can’t I go to the same US senator who said on February 5 2003. a month and a half before Bush decided to invade Iraq using ground forces and without the authorization of the UN Security Council in the form of the second USA resolution that Biden was calling for.

Biden February 5, 2003​

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​

Iraqi Weapons Violations​

While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​

Why is my 2003 Joe Biden not relevant in your mind but your 1998 Joe Biden is the greatest right wing nut job Liberal gotcha in the history of mankind?

 

[struth]

NOTE the words “IF NECESSARY”
BIDEN 2003 (Bush) must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.

BIDEN 1998

guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”

If you must go all the way back to 1998 to pick up on every single word a US senator says in a hearing, why can’t I go to the same US senator who said on February 5 2003. a month and a half before Bush decided to invade Iraq using ground forces and without the authorization of the UN Security Council in the form of the second USA resolution that Biden was calling for.

Biden February 5, 2003​

Now that the secretary of State has done his job, the president I think must finish his job. And that is he must engage in a personal diplomacy with -- as he already is doing, based on my breakfast with him this morning, with others -- with key members of the Security Council to pass a second resolution setting a deadline authorizing the use of force if necessary in order to disarm Saddam Hussein.​

Iraqi Weapons Violations​

While the second resolution isn't a legal requirement in my view, and while we can win the war on our own, we are much better off if we support the United Nations and we move with a broad coalition. The hard part begins after -- after, after -- after we defeat Saddam Hussein, if that proves to be necessary, for it promises to be a lengthy and costly period of nation-building and occupation -- hopefully not with merely U.S. forces. We want as many countries as possible helping us in this decade after Saddam falls. To get their help afterwards, we need to sign them up at the front end of this process, and getting them to sign up will be much easier if we have a second U.N. resolution.​

Why is my 2003 Joe Biden not relevant in your mind but your 1998 Joe Biden is the greatest right wing nut job Liberal gotcha in the history of mankind?

and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s

 

[struth]

Let me post this video again...this was 5 years before Bush:Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion


“You and I believe, and many of us believe here, as long as Saddam is at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam’s program relative to weapons of mass destruction. You and I both know, and all of us here really know, and it’s a thing we have to face, that the only way, the only way we’re going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we’re going to end up having to start it alone — start it alone — and it’s going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking this son of a — taking Saddam down,”

Hey, maybe Republicans can all retire from politics, because they are never responsible for anything, according to you.

Biden didn't send troops into Iraq, Bush did.

Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s

Well if you were to understand the context of what was going on in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks you would be able to see why your criticism and judgments are off base. But I can’t expect you to understand anything about anything at all except what you pick up in the right wing propaganda machine and I see now you’re digging up from the far left dumping grounds to spread your hate.

When BUDEN voted for the AUMF in OCTOBER 2002

• Saddam Hussein had not let UN weapons inspectors inside IRAQ since 1998.
• The US and UK at a minimum were in an air campaign against Iraq in the at least above northern FlyZone. And during the summer of 2002 bombing specific targets in Iraq was already going on.
• Cheney argued that the US did not need another UNSC Resolution to invade Iraq. And the BUSH Administration did not need a née AUMF Because they already had one for use of force against terrorists and nations that harbor them.
• Cheney was pushing bush with all the war mongering neocons to go it alone to not mess things up by going to the UN Security Council In case Saddam complied.
• On the other side there was the diplomatic minded group pushing the effort to get a UNSC security council resolution to disarm IRAQ peacefully as one last chance to avoid war.
• Bush in September 2002 sided with the Colin Powell diplomatic Group and stated numerous times that his goal was to avoid war
• Many Democratic senators and congressmen met with Bush and they were given his word that he needed the AUMF in order to force Saddam Hussein and the UNSC to resume inspections. That way if Saddam Hussein allowed inspections back in war could be avoided.

I agreed with the vote by Republicans and Democratic senators to authorize the use of force if necessary as pressure on Saddam Hussein that would force him to finally comply. I mostly agreed with that because war could be avoided if inspections got back in and the broader coalition that Senator Biden talked about could be formed if Saddam Hussain didn’t let inspections back in.

Another reason probably most important was the push by Cheney to go around the UN without even trying. That was certain war and it probably would’ve been even 10 times worse if the BRITs couldn’t come along and that case.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq

What success. What was the purpose of the war? When was the goal of the mission achieved?

 

[struth]

and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s

Well if you were to understand the context of what was going on in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks you would be able to see why your criticism and judgments are off base. But I can’t expect you to understand anything about anything at all except what you pick up in the right wing propaganda machine and I see now you’re digging up from the far left dumping grounds to spread your hate.

When BUDEN voted for the AUMF in OCTOBER 2002

• Saddam Hussein had not let UN weapons inspectors inside IRAQ since 1998.
• The US and UK at a minimum were in an air campaign against Iraq in the at least above northern FlyZone. And during the summer of 2002 bombing specific targets in Iraq was already going on.
• Cheney argued that the US did not need another UNSC Resolution to invade Iraq. And the BUSH Administration did not need a née AUMF Because they already had one for use of force against terrorists and nations that harbor them.
• Cheney was pushing bush with all the war mongering neocons to go it alone to not mess things up by going to the UN Security Council In case Saddam complied.
• On the other side there was the diplomatic minded group pushing the effort to get a UNSC security council resolution to disarm IRAQ peacefully as one last chance to avoid war.
• Bush in September 2002 sided with the Colin Powell diplomatic Group and stated numerous times that his goal was to avoid war
• Many Democratic senators and congressmen met with Bush and they were given his word that he needed the AUMF in order to force Saddam Hussein and the UNSC to resume inspections. That way if Saddam Hussein allowed inspections back in war could be avoided.

I agreed with the vote by Republicans and Democratic senators to authorize the use of force if necessary as pressure on Saddam Hussein that would force him to finally comply. I mostly agreed with that because war could be avoided if inspections got back in and the broader coalition that Senator Biden talked about could be formed if Saddam Hussain didn’t let inspections back in.

Another reason probably most important was the push by Cheney to go around the UN without even trying. That was certain war and it probably would’ve been even 10 times worse if the BRITs couldn’t come along and that case.

oh i remember, that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I remember the 90/s to and understand Xiden’s views and where they developed

 

[struth]

Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq

What success. What was the purpose of the war? When was the goal of the mission achieved?

yes. Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and then voted and supporter the war, because he had been pushing it since the 90s

Are you ever going to engage in a discussion. Why is the policy difference between George W Bush and Joe Biden not relevant? Do you think Biden was right to request Butch do not invade Iraq on our own without the approval of the United Nations Security Council under a new resolution?

I justo explained to you the conditions when Joe Biden voted for the authorization to use in IRAQ in October 2002 to do IT WITH support of the United Nations Security Council. And I’ve got some news for you about the hearing with Scott Ritter in 1998.

do you ever look up the context of anything you post.? Not that you care?

Biden is arguing for diplomatic sanctions versus sonethin called “compelled access”that Rick Ritter was advocating for. Compelled excess would give the authority to a UN weapons inspector to start a war And send by sending in US ground forces.

Compelled access​

Joe BIDEN: As I said several times at the hearing, Ritter provided a very valuable service to his country. He came forward and forced us to face a stark choice in our policy toward Iraq: diplomacy or confrontation.​

Ritter advocates a policy that he described as "inspection-driven confrontation." He said the Security Council decided to seek diplomatic alternatives to confrontation, and some planned inspections were canceled after the United States raised questions. He stepped down in protest. I believe that was a courageous move.​

As I pointed out at the hearing, the Security Council's alternative diplomatic policy is not without logic. It is based on a strategy of keeping sanctions in place to deny Iraq the billions of dollars that could otherwise be used to restart the program of weapons of mass destruction. Your paper may not agree with that policy, but it has some merits.​

I also acknowledged that a policy based on sanctions does not guarantee that Saddam Hussein's weapons program will be curtailed. Ultimately, as long as Saddam Hussein is at the helm, no inspectors can guarantee that they have rooted out the entirety of Saddam Hussein's weapons program. And I said the only way to remove Saddam is a massive military effort, led by the United States.​

That's the stark policy choice Ritter has brought before the American people, and I commended him for it.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...respect/6acd6366-2058-4a7c-83cd-da4d345c144d/​

The questions I raised at the hearing had to do with the implications of Ritter's confrontation-based policy. Ritter acknowledged that, under his option, if Iraq denied access to inspectors, the United Nations, or the United States acting alone, would have to use force to guarantee access.​

I stated, "You have indicated your job is to disarm, and the only way to disarm is to have access, and the only way you can have access is either with permission or, if denied, forced access, right?"​

Ritter answered, "Compelled access, yes, sir."​

In my view, that means that an inspector, by forcing an inspection, can be taking the first steps that might lead the United States to war. I told Ritter -- and I still believe -- that a decision with those implications is "above his pay grade." I meant no disrespect and so stated at the hearing. I meant only that such a decision can only be made by the president, advised by the secretaries of defense and state.​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yes. Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.

Don’t you know?

I wanted to hear from you what it is.

There is only one justification for the actual invasion. It’s to find the WMD. And there was none. So the war cannot be a success. Why do you think it was a success with the purpose of the war was completely wrong and based on lies.

 

[struth]

yes. Read the points in the authorization that xiden voted for.

Don’t you know?

yeah i posted them for you already

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yeah i posted them for you already

What is “them”? There is only one justification for the invasion. For example the UN inspectors in Iraq were not searching for Kuwaiti paintings?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

that’s why i don’t go around being critical of Bush and the people that supported it. I

did you or did you not support George W Bush‘s decision on March 17, 2003 to invade Iraq to find the weapons of mass destruction that were supposedly being hidden there from the United Nations Security Council’s WMD inspectors?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yeah i posted them for you already

WHAT IS THEM? there is only one:

If peaceful means fails Bush is authorized to
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

here Is the AUMF:
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.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Obama felt the need to leave a free and stable Iraq, and let them know the day we'd be leaving.

You are a liar. THE (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, was signed by President George W. Bush in (DECEMBER) 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

The entire world knew that US TROOPS would be out of Iraqi cities five months after Obama was Inaugurated. and all troops gone by 2012.

Obama had nothing to do with it.

Bush had no say either because it was entirely up to the Iraqis who fiercely wanted no more extensions for multinational troops under UNSC 1790.

The IRAQIS wanted US troops out and would not grant legal immunity for troops after Bush/Maliki 2 year SOFA expired.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1790 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on December 18, 2007, extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 31, 2008. The mandate had been established in 2004 by Security Council resolution 1546 and previously extended by resolutions 1637 and 1723.[1]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.

I see when its the Democrats in the White House the President and Vice President gather and analyze intelligence data

But when its Bush and Cheney they have nothing to do with gathering and analyzing intelligence e data.

 

[MadChemist]

The Clinton/Gore Admin signed the Iraq Liberation Bill, and it was their intel that said they were developing Nukes.

I see when its the Democrats in the White House the President and Vice President gather and analyze intelligence data

But when its Bush and Cheney they have nothing to do with gathering and analyzing intelligence e data.

The current moron in the WH can't analyze a lunch menu.

And Harris is probably just barely capable (of analyzing a lunch menu).

 

[NotfooledbyW]

...they voted to authorize the us of military force in Iraq...there was NOT one stipulation about going to the UN...

Yes there was a UN stipulation in the AUMF
How do you not know these things?
Its very explicit; (In bold)

EC. 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.​

 

[JoeB131]

Bush was a republican and responsible for the success in iraq

Success? Did you say that with a straight fucking face?

Bush's war in Iraq was a gross case of incompetence. We went to war over weapons that didn't exist, we had no plan for securing the country, and we had to pay bribes to leave the country unmolested. The people we left in charge immediately fucked it up and Obama had to go back in to save them, but we ended up turning the country over to Iran, which is what everyone predicted would happen back in 2003.