When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Mr. Shaman]

I always love it when folks bring up what Clinton or one of Clinton's staff are quoted regarding Saddam as a threat. But Clinton had no intention of invading Iraq.

Hell.....Congress wouldn't LET him do so!!!!​

Iraq Liberation Act​

"This act required the President to designate one or more qualified recipients of assistance, with the primary requirement being opposition to the present Saddam Hussein regime. Such groups should, according to the Act, include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, who are opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime, and are committed to democratic values, peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, respect for human rights, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime. On February 4, 1999 President Clinton designated seven groups as qualifying for assistance under the Act.

The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

 

[rightwinger]

Everyone agrees Iraq was a mistake

 

[BlindBoo]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

Only ONE person made the decision to invade Iraq.........that was Bush

His blunder was one of the worst decisions in history

^ false.

The President could not make that "decision" without authority.

Thus, those who were in a position to grant such authority and who DID grant such authority are unable (despite frenetic efforts by the usual suspect liberals) to evade their own responsibility.

As spin efforts go, that one by rightwinger is typical of the lefties. It is an abject fail.

 

[Billo_Really]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

True story.

 

[Billo_Really]

Everyone agrees Iraq was a mistake

Spending out $6 trillion taxpayer dollars and getting nothing in return goes way beyond a "mistake".

 

[IlarMeilyr]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

Only ONE person made the decision to invade Iraq.........that was Bush

His blunder was one of the worst decisions in history

^ false.

The President could not make that "decision" without authority.

Thus, those who were in a position to grant such authority and who DID grant such authority are unable (despite frenetic efforts by the usual suspect liberals) to evade their own responsibility.

As spin efforts go, that one by rightwinger is typical of the lefties. It is an abject fail.

Another bogus analysis.

Yes, Congress did make provisos. But they also did allow the President to make the decision BASED on his determination that the provisos were met.

He could not make that decision, however, absent their grant of authority.

So spin and twist and flip and flop all you guys want. Doesn't change a blessed single solitary thing. They bear responsibility, too.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Everyone agrees Iraq was a mistake

^ untrue.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Republicans are having a problem dumping Iraq onto the Democrats so they are in the process of dumping it on "everybody", not just Democrats. If pinning it on everybody works, later they might try pinning Iraq on just the Democrats.
The thing that is hard for them to change, however, is the war resolution, there it is in section 3 in black white stating that "...the president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United states as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...."
It does not say Bush has to, or must, but as he determines to be necessary and approppriate. It was Bush's decision, not everybody's, not the Democrats, not even Obama's.

Exactly. We had a republican house, republican senate, and a republican president. Though when the GOP screws up, they never man up and admit they were wrong, they just ***** out at try to blame the democrats.

W and the GOP screwed up big time, own it.

 

[BlindBoo]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

^ false.

The President could not make that "decision" without authority.

Thus, those who were in a position to grant such authority and who DID grant such authority are unable (despite frenetic efforts by the usual suspect liberals) to evade their own responsibility.

As spin efforts go, that one by rightwinger is typical of the lefties. It is an abject fail.

Another bogus analysis.

Yes, Congress did make provisos. But they also did allow the President to make the decision BASED on his determination that the provisos were met.

He could not make that decision, however, absent their grant of authority.

So spin and twist and flip and flop all you guys want. Doesn't change a blessed single solitary thing. They bear responsibility, too.

Based on Han Blix's final report the weapons inspections were going better than ever. So the UNSCR 1441, which the US agreed to, was in effect and was being effective. So not only did bush violate the Joint resolution but he also renigged on our obligations to the UN thus destroying what his father had worked so hard to achieve thru the UN.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

147 Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization. Did they know something 'everyone' else didn't,

or did they just get lucky? Because they were right, and Bush, who made the final decision, was wrong.

Where was Bush wrong?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....using poorly-thought-out analogies????

​

July 4, 2007

Independence Day 2007:
President Psyches Up Iraq-Bound Troops​

"On Independence Day we remember. We remember a great war. A war fought by a rag-tag band of scrappy insurgents, fighting against the occupying army of the most powerful Empire in the world. An Empire so arrogant and selfish, it thought it could lay claim to every corner of the earth, and snatch all the world’s resources for itself. An Empire so in love with itself, it thought is was God’s favorite, and believed itself duty-bound to jam its style of government and way of life down the throats of anyone who disagreed with it. Many said that the scrappy insurgents could never win, that the Empire would crush them like puny ants. But the rebels fought on, and their numbers grew, as citizen-soldiers dropped pitchforks and took up crude weapons to fight for their liberty and independence. These brave and determined fighters dispensed with the rules of warfare. They hid in the shadows, launching devastating attacks on the soft underbelly of their fearsome enemy. The Empire called them cowards and terrorists. But in the end, the Empire lost. Lost because of their undeserved entitlement. Lost because of their greed and laziness. Lost because their so-called divine leader – a dude named King George – was a stubborn warmonger who couldn’t accept that his ass had been whooped. Which wasn’t a big surprise really, since dumb old George only got to be in charge on account of he was related to some older, smarter guy with the same name."

 

[IlarMeilyr]

According to the Joint resolution he was the decider. Based criteria in that resolution the President failed. Iraq was not a threat and did not play a part in 9-11. But lucky for him Congress had no Balls and didn't call him on it.

Another bogus analysis.

Yes, Congress did make provisos. But they also did allow the President to make the decision BASED on his determination that the provisos were met.

He could not make that decision, however, absent their grant of authority.

So spin and twist and flip and flop all you guys want. Doesn't change a blessed single solitary thing. They bear responsibility, too.

Based on Han Blix's final report the weapons inspections were going better than ever. So the UNSCR 1441, which the US agreed to, was in effect and was being effective. So not only did bush violate the Joint resolution but he also renigged on our obligations to the UN thus destroying what his father had worked so hard to achieve thru the UN.

The conclusion you propose does not follow from your limp premise.

President Bush was not bound by the questionable conclusions of Hans Blix in making his own determination. There was NO such condition imposed in the Resolution passed by Congress.

Further, the President did not reneg on any obligations to the UN. Nor did he "destroy" what his father had worked to achieve. IF anything, the US action finally gave some teeth to the ineffectual body laughingly known as the United Nations.

 

[expatriate]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

 

[Billo_Really]

Nobody said it was a blank check, you diseased genetic defect.

But it was authority.

And if Congress chose not to impose tests on whatever "limits" they imagined they were installing into the authorization, that's just another bit of blame to be borne by the liberal Democrats who approved the Resolution.

Wriggle all you want. You cannot evade the fact that they bear responsibility, too.

They set conditions for military action, which Bush ignored.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Nobody said it was a blank check, you diseased genetic defect.

But it was authority.

And if Congress chose not to impose tests on whatever "limits" they imagined they were installing into the authorization, that's just another bit of blame to be borne by the liberal Democrats who approved the Resolution.

Wriggle all you want. You cannot evade the fact that they bear responsibility, too.

They set conditions for military action, which Bush ignored.

^ false. You have no evidence that President Bush "ignored" anything. HE made determinations as was his duty. YOU are free to reject those determinations, but the fact that a moron like YOU happens to disagree does NOT mean that HE ignored anything.

 

[Article 15]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

 

[Redfish]

Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money, so was viet nam and so is afghanistan.

I think most informed people agree on that.

The lie here is that Bush went into Iraq based on a lie that he, and he alone, created because he just "wanted a war".

That is revisionist history at its worst and partisanship at its worst.

We need to learn from history and that is virtually impossible when history is constantly being rewritten for imagined political gain.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

Because that's how we count the votes?



A majority of the Democrat Members of the House DID vote AGAINST the Resolution.

A MINORITY of the Democrat Senators voted against the Resolution.

 

[Redfish]

a few observations from reading this thread:

1. As a lifelong democrat, I remain proud that a MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS in CONGRESS voted AGAINST the use of force resolution, whereas republican support for it was nearly unanimous.

2. If a rabid pit bull is terrorizing a local neighborhood, that does NOT make the dog a "terrorist". Words have meanings, and people who willfully disregard and purposely misstate those meanings are extremely annoying. John Kerry said that American troops breaking into Iraqi civilian homes in the dead of night terrorized the inhabitants. True statement. Accurate statement. He NEVER called American troops "terrorists". Fact.

3. Even Dubya has repeatedly stated that he felt sick to his stomach when he realized that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of nasty WMD's.

4. Dubya may have, himself, BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but he LIED to the American people when he stated that THERE IS NO DOUBT that Saddam has them.... Telling America that there was absolute certainty that WMD's existed when no such degree of certainty was EVER there, was a LIE. It was an important lie, however. They needed America to believe THAT lie and to also believe that, somehow, Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had his intelligence people meeting with Muhammed Atta BEFORE 9/11 and that there was an operational alliance between Iraq and AQ that would make Saddam giving his stockpiles of WMD's (which there was NO DOUBT concerning their existence) to his buddy OBL (even though, even marginally knowledgeable folks - and certainly Saddam -knew that the primary raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the destruction of Arab secular nation states)

A majority of Democrats in the HOUSE voted AGAINST the Resolution. The converse, however, is true for the SENATE. Try to be factually accurate once in a while.

Defending the appalling words of that scumbag, John Kerry, serves to prove that you have and deserve no credibility.

President Bush probably did feel a bit heartsick that the more massive stockpiles of WMDs which were expected were not discovered. At least President Bush is honest. That does not mean that Saddam had not HAD such weapons.

And no. It is still untrue what you say. IF he was wrong (which is not yet established, all of your fanciful assurances to the contrary notwithstanding), that does NOT mean he lied. Words DO have meaning. That fact does not make exceptions for you and your rancid rhetoric and propaganda.

Try to follow along this time, you idiot. A "lie" is not just a statement which is factually incorrect. It is also a factually incorrect statement which is said WITH the desire to deceive. IF it is believed, however incorrect it may be, it is not a "lie."

You, however, remain a moron.

Congress = House + Senate

To say the majority of Dems in Congress voted against AUMF Iraq is factually accurate.

It is also accurate the a majority of democrats in congress voted for obamacare, the worst piece of legislation in the history of the USA, so whats your point?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

So given the FACT Saddam wouldn't comply with the SANCTIONS and murdered by starvation 500,000 children
AND if he were still there today, still not complying, the sanctions in place, another 500,000 children would starve!
Sanctions began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power) or 13 years.

Ah, yes.....Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait!!!

Yeah....we really took a strong stand on that one!!!​

THE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1990

Meeting With U.S. Envoy​

APRIL GLASPIE: I saw the Diane Sawyer program on ABC. And what happened in that program was cheap and unjust. And this is a real picture of what happens in the American media -- even to American politicians themselves. These are the methods the Western media employs. I am pleased that you add your voice to the diplomats who stand up to the media. Because your appearance in the media, even for five minutes, would help us to make the American people understand Iraq. This would increase mutual understanding. If they American President had control of the media, his job would be much easier.

Mr. President, not only do I want to say that President Bush wanted better and deeper relations with Iraq, but he also wants an Iraqi contribution to peace and prosperity in the Middle East. President Bush is an intelligent man. He is not going to declare an economic war against Iraq.

You are right. It is true what you say that we do not want higher prices for oil. But I would ask you to examine the possibility of not charging too high a price for oil.

SADDAM HUSSEIN: We do not want too high prices for oil. And I remind you that in 1974 I gave Tariq Aziz the idea for an article he wrote which criticized the policy of keeping oil prices high. It was the first Arab article which expressed this view.

HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.

GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.

HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.

GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."