Did you Support War in Iraq??

[struth]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

 

[surada]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

 

[struth]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.

theintercept.com

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,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article Not just regime change, but ground troops

 

[surada]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.

theintercept.com

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,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article Not just regime change, but ground troops

From your link.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

 

[struth]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.

theintercept.com

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,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article Not just regime change, but ground troops

From your link.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

and then he voted for it, because the will of Congress was there in 2001....and when he had the power, as VP to deal with occupying part after the success of taking out Saddam..he choked.

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and then he voted for it,

You are a liar. Biden did not vote for war in October 2002. He voted to give Bush the authority to decide if war was necessary. So quit lying repeating the same crap.

 

[surada]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.

theintercept.com

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,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article Not just regime change, but ground troops

From your link.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

and then he voted for it, because the will of Congress was there in 2001....and when he had the power, as VP to deal with occupying part after the success of taking out Saddam..he choked.

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

The US military brass told Bush he needed 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops. Don't you remember? Bush decided to go with what he had. Such imbeciles ..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

It was Bush who decided that it was necessary to remove him. It was not Biden. Biden is not the decider.

as far as removing Saddam with ground troops when Biden was telling the Bush administration is that you can’t just take out Saddam Hussain you have to build a nation to replace it or things will be worse if you just take him out and leave. That’s what Bush didn’t understand that’s why Bush did not get the world community behind him and he didn’t go for the second resolution at the UNSC to make it all legitimate.

Biden believed that if Bush got a second resolution and lined up the entire world community behind him and weapons inspectors found definite evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD from the inspectors, a real serious material breach of the UN security council resolution, then the international pressure and threat of war was going to be for Saddam Hussein to resign. Change without war. It’s an alternative a warmonger like you can’t like. No killing involved.

 

[struth]

and then he voted for it,

You are a liar. Biden did not vote for war in October 2002. He voted to give Bush the authority to decide if war was necessary. So quit lying repeating the same crap.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.

Just stop with your lies

 

[struth]

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

It was Butch who decided that it was necessary to remove him. It was not Biden. Biden is not the decider.

as far as removing Saddam with ground troops when Biden was telling the Bush administration is that you can’t just take out Saddam Hussain you half to build a nation to replace it or things will be worse if you just take him out and leave. That’s what Bysh didn’t understand that’s why Bush did not get the world community behind him and he didn’t go for the second resolution at the UNSC to make it all legitimate.

Buden believed that if Bush got a second resolution and lined up the entire world community behind him and weapons inspectors found definite evidence that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD from the inspectors, a real serious material breach of the UN security council resolution, then the international pressure and threat of war was going to be for Saddam Hussein to resign. Change without war. It’s an alternative a warmonger like you can’t like. No killing involved.

Well yeah Bush made the ulimate decision, and was for it...just like Xiden. Bush couldn't of done it though without Xiden voting for him to have the authority to do so.

 

[struth]

Sadly, when Xiden was in the Executive, as VP, and had a free and stable...Saddam free Iraq, with numerous nations in a coalition supporting him, he turned his back on the nation building aspect in an election year for political gain

Since Iraq was in all appearance as free and stable and perhaps more so as it was in December 2008 when DUBYA handed off the US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project that you support to this day, Oh Catholic man, hear ye this:

In 2003 Biden warned Bush’s officials in the JANUARY 30 Senate HEARING not to do REGIME CHANGE in haste and unprepared for nation building and not without the world and the United Nations with you and committed 100 percent.

So when you say that Biden turned his back on Bush’s nation building project in 2009 You must be nuts

You keep saying the “US&UK ill-prepared and ill-conceived Iraqi Nation Building REGIME CHANGE Project” turned out to be a huge success that was handed off to Obama and Biden in 2009. So a big part of that nation building success was for Biden and Obama being able to withdraw all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

So they did the correct follow through on nation building and the United nations were behind them.

You have cherry picked things that Biden said in that January 30 hearing to identify him as a warmonger for supporting what Bush decided to do. To do as Biden warned in haste, not prepared and without worldwide support.

So tell me what did Biden turn his back on by throwing combat troops remain free and stable Iraq and respect for the sovereignty that was agonizingly achieved in 2008? Agonizingly because Bush did not listen to Joe Biden in 2003 as he would have been wise to do. Let the injectors have more time to be certain the evidence for a case of justifying preemptive regime change is rock solid sand the case for war has worldwide support.

Biden was ignored and Bush lied to invade

HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE JANUARY 30, 2003 NFBWSEN108JAN30IRAQ1



struth Yesterday at 1:13 PM

---

And this exchange with Xiden...where Xiden is making the case to overthrow Saddam:

The administration officials, including the President on Tuesday night, have repeatedly asserted that the Iraqi
Government maintains ties with members
of the al-Qaeda network.

Are you able to tell us what evidence you have to support that claim? And as a follow-on to that, why is it that we spend, it seems, so much time on making the assertions that are the least--or the most difficult to prove, including the aluminum tubes, when we have such overwhelming evidence of the failure of Iraq to comply with the existence--or with 1441? It seems to undercut our case. We lead with the two things that may be true, but are the most difficult to prove, and we seem not do

what you guys did here today, very compellingly talk about VX, anthrax, things we know.So it is a two-part question. One, what evidence, if youare able to share with us, is there about direct connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda? And two, what is the rationale for how we have been leading thus far, and will it change with the evidence we are presenting?

Mr. Armitage: Thank you, sir. On the question of al-Qaeda, in this forum, I will say that it is clear that al-Qaeda is
harbored to some extent in Iraq, that there is a presence in Iraq. There are other indications of some--a recent assassination of our diplomat in Amman, Mr. Foley, that was apparently orchestrated by an al-Qaeda member who is resident in Baghdad.

Having said that, I am not making the case here that this is a 9/11 connection, but I will make the case that the President has made consistently, sir, and that is that it is the thirst for the weapons of mass destruction and our belief that if Saddam Hussein can pass them to people who will do us ill without being caught, he will do it. That gives us so much concern. And this will be part of the information that Secretary Powell is going to impart in some more detail. They are busy back home right now trying to declassify as much as possible to give him a pretty full case.

On the question of why we spend so much time on things that are difficult to prove, I do not know. Perhaps, particularly on the aluminum tubes, we miscalculated. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion in the intelligence community, which we
came up and briefed forthrightly and, indeed, deliberately.

Senator Biden. I agree, you did.

Mr. Armitage. Well, the reason we did it deliberately was to show you we are not playing hide-the-bacon here. I believe that, as I indicated to Senator Hagel the other day in a conversation, that the view is shifting on this more to the side that this has a relationship to nuclear activities, rather than rocket motors. But perhaps we miscalculated. And I take your comments as a sign to, as we used to say in the Navy, ``KISS''--``Keep it simple, sailor''--go with your--go with your----
Senator Biden. Strongest case.
Mr. Armitage. Yes, your strong points.

You are a liar because you wholeheartedly support to this very day, Bush’s unnecessary decision on March 17 2003 to unilaterally remove 200 UNSC weapons inspections to launch a ground invasion to depose Saddam HUSSEIN in the false grounds that chec was actively at the time .. as quoted “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

The transcript show that Xiden wanted regime change in Iraq.

I don't really know if Iraq was more or less free and stable in 08, then 2011. Doesn't really matter. All I know is in 2011 Obama said it was.

Please post the Biden quote from the text.

Joe Biden Was Talking Up War With Iraq Five Years Before Invasion

At a 1998 Senate hearing, Biden argued that “taking Saddam down” was the only way to guarantee Iraq’s disarmament.

theintercept.com

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,” Biden said. “You know it and I know it.”

The video is in the article Not just regime change, but ground troops

From your link.

Biden, to be sure, was not a full-throated advocate for the war on Bush’s terms, and throughout the fall, worked with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel to try to build support for a narrower authorization, that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of dismantling a WMD program. But the effort was undercut by House Democratic leaders, and particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who pushed ahead with Bush’s broader resolution. “I was angry,” Biden later said, according to “Hubris.” “I was frustrated. But I never second-guess another man’s political judgment.”

Biden was also aware of the difficulty of invading and occupying Iraq, unlike some of his Republican colleagues. In February 1998, the News Journal of Wilmington reported that Biden saw invasion as unlikely.

Though some Republicans have urged the military to remove Saddam from power entirely, Biden said there was little will for that in Congress. Such a move would require a bloody ground war, the use of 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops, and some kind of continuing presence in Iraq while a new government is installed, he said.

and then he voted for it, because the will of Congress was there in 2001....and when he had the power, as VP to deal with occupying part after the success of taking out Saddam..he choked.

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

The US military brass told Bush he needed 300,000 to 500,000 ground troops. Don't you remember? Bush decided to go with what he had. Such imbeciles ..

and we have sent a lot more then that....as of 2007, and I am sure the number is bigger now:

OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM AND OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM: DEMOGRAPHICS AND IMPACT - Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan - NCBI Bookshelf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001, over 1.9 million US military personnel have been deployed in 3 million tours of duty lasting more than 30 days as part of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.

Just stop with your lies

I said that you ignorant liar.I said the full sentence which includes the two words that make the distinction between Bush and Biden “if necessary”

(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.

and Bush did not enforce all relevant United Nations security council resolutions regarding Iraq that was required in the AUMF. Bush defied and went around you and SC1441 because in a few more months of weapons inspections it would’ve been found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction stock piles. ZERO. Outcome is the invasion and $7 Trillion wasted according to trump and 4500 American lives to find out. Zero. Call for nothing and you Support it.

 

[struth]

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.

Just stop with your lies

I said that you ignorant liar.I said the full sentence which includes the two words that make the distinction between Bush and Biden “if necessary”

(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.

and Bush did not enforce all relevant United Nations security council resolutions regarding Iraq that was required in the AUMF. Bush defied and went around you and SC1441 because in a few more months of weapons inspections it would’ve been found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction stock piles. ZERO. Outcome is the invasion and $7 Trillion wasted according to trump and 4500 American lives to find out. Zero. Call for nothing and you Support it.

Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...which isn't uncommon when the Congress authorizes war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...

(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 -

you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?

struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”

AUMF: “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ....


Why did you feel the need to change it?

 

[struth]

Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary...very broad power they gave Bush...

(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 -

you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?

struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”

AUMF: “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ....


Why did you feel the need to change it?

i didn’t i literally copied it right of the law.

congress have the president authorization to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

If Bush determined it to be necessary and appropriate... and peaceful means (became 1441 inspections) would not lead to IRAQ’s compliance with all UNSC Resolutions against Iraq. Iraq was not hiding WMD - Bush lied to you and to Biden and to the entire world. And Trump knows Bush lied and wasted all Those Lives and dollars. And you don’t object to Bush’s lies at all. Now you even lie about the wording of the AUMF

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.

as he determines to be necessary

Well yeah Bush made the ulimate decision, and was for it..

But he fucking lied that SH was hiding WMD as he made that decision.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

There was no WMD being hidden.

Bush couldn't of done it though without Xiden voting for him to have the authority to do so.

Bush said he could do it based on the War in Terrorism authorization and there was no need to go through the UN at all. But Tony Blair cannot join Bush without going through the UN first.

Most Democrats in speeches on the floor when they voted for the AUMF that they consider it a vote for the best opportunity to avoid war. But they needed to join Bush to be with one voice to make sure that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm peacefully.

In October 2002 when the vote to authorize military force if necessary was taken, the convincing part to get Democrats on board was that Bush said he would go through the UN and get another resolution. I’ve explained this before. Through the summer of 2002 and into the fall the push for war by the bush administration said they believed they had authority, they were authorized to remove Saddam Hussein based on the broad war on terror authorization.

Cheney and Wolfowitz all the hard core neocons we’re pushing Bush to reject Colin Powell!s Preference to go through the UN and try to get a resolution forcing tough inspections for a last chance to disarm IRAQ peacefully. Cheney would have none of it. But Bush had a problem. Tony Blair needed to go through the UN to get a last chance for a peaceful Resolution.

So Bush rejected Cheney and went with Pand told the Democrats that he wanted to avoid war and the best way to do it was for them to authorize him to use military force if Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors back in. The rest is history. When you leave all this out you’re nothing but a liar.

Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary..

The AUMF is worded supporting Bush’s promise to go through the UN and get a resolution for new tough inspections. That became 1441. Saddam allow the inspectors in. Much to Cheney’s chagrin I’m sure. Every Democrat that voted for the AUMF did so because they believed the threat of military force was all It V would take to finally peacefully disarm Iraq.

.very broad power they gave Bush...which isn't uncommon when the Congress authorizes war.

you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?

@struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”

AUMF: “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ....


Why did you feel the need to change it?

i didn’t i literally copied it right of the law.

from the Bible?

congress have the president authorization to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary

If necessary.

 

[struth]

But it's clear...he was for removing Saddam, and believed ground troops were needed to do it.

If Bush determined it to be necessary and appropriate... and peaceful means (became 1441 inspections) would not lead to IRAQ’s compliance with all UNSC Resolutions against Iraq. Iraq was not hiding WMD - Bush lied to you and to Biden and to the entire world. And Trump knows Bush lied and wasted all Those Lives and dollars. And you don’t object to Bush’s lies at all. Now you even lie about the wording of the AUMF

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Dude...it's Public Law...Xiden voted to authorize the President to use the military.

as he determines to be necessary

Well yeah Bush made the ulimate decision, and was for it..

But he fucking lied that SH was hiding WMD as he made that decision.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

There was no WMD being hidden.

Bush couldn't of done it though without Xiden voting for him to have the authority to do so.

Bush said he could do it based on the War in Terrorism authorization and there was no need to go through the UN at all. But Tony Blair cannot join Bush without going through the UN first.

Most Democrats in speeches on the floor when they voted for the AUMF that they consider it a vote for the best opportunity to avoid war. But they needed to join Bush to be with one voice to make sure that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm peacefully.

In October 2002 when the vote to authorize military force if necessary was taken, the convincing part to get Democrats on board was that Bush said he would go through the UN and get another resolution. I’ve explained this before. Through the summer of 2002 and into the fall the push for war by the bush administration said they believed they had authority, they were authorized to remove Saddam Hussein based on the broad war on terror authorization.

Cheney and Wolfowitz all the hard core neocons we’re pushing Bush to reject Colin Powell!s Preference to go through the UN and try to get a resolution forcing tough inspections for a last chance to disarm IRAQ peacefully. Cheney would have none of it. But Bush had a problem. Tony Blair needed to go through the UN to get a last chance for a peaceful Resolution.

So Bush rejected Cheney and went with Pand told the Democrats that he wanted to avoid war and the best way to do it was for them to authorize him to use military force if Saddam Hussein would not allow inspectors back in. The rest is history. When you leave all this out you’re nothing but a liar.

Yes, Xiden gave the President authoization to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary..

The AUMF is worded supporting Bush’s promise to go through the UN and get a resolution for new tough inspections. That became 1441. Saddam allow the inspectors in. Much to Cheney’s chagrin I’m sure. Every Democrat that voted for the AUMF did so because they believed the threat of military force was all It V would take to finally peacefully disarm Iraq.

.very broad power they gave Bush...which isn't uncommon when the Congress authorizes war.

you believe these two Expression mean the same thing?

@struth @to use the military against Iraq however he deemed necessary”

AUMF: “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ....


Why did you feel the need to change it?

i didn’t i literally copied it right of the law.

from the Bible?

congress have the president authorization to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary

If necessary.

yes xiden voted to allow bush to use the military against iraq as he deemed necessary...pretty common for the congress to be so broad when voting for war. they aren’t going to micromanage the war once they authorize it

i copied off the congressial website

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i copied off the congressial website

Link for verification?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just stop twisting....it's the libtards that flip flopped and pretend now they were against it, when for years they were all for it.

What precisely is the “flop flop by Joe Biden that you believe you discovered?

..also you posted the AUMF here, I checked, you did change the wording to feed your lies.

 

[struth]

Just stop twisting....it's the libtards that flip flopped and pretend now they were against it, when for years they were all for it.

What precisely is the “flop flop by Joe Biden that you believe you discovered?

..also you posted the AUMF here, I checked, you did change the wording to feed your lies.

i said libtards.

the ones that are acting like they were against regime change