"Just so everyone knows. Technically we're not in a war.
So calling it an invasion or occupation would be more correct."

This just in... 3 more American military dead in imprudent foreign entanglement...

jebus phillydrifter - that's got to be the equivalent of Godwinning the thread

please try summarizing and using links to articles to support your position

the hamster that turns my mousewheel is getting tired

tommy - read the bill - or actually read the words directly after the word CONTEXT [sic] in the text you quoted

it is like you are beyond pity

".. and they decided to urge his removal ... but not do a goddamned thing about it. Good going, Clinton"

Uh, yeah. That was good going. Maybe you're unclear on how this war has turned out.

Running a-puck I hope you proceeded to at least read the 2nd part of my rather long post, about how everyone is forgetting the entire reason behind the Libby trial: who outed Plame, whose husband called the Niger documents fake.

Did you get to the part about the burglary of Nigerian government offices, and the most peculiar things that were stolen?

Official Government letterhead. Hmmm...and the forged documents showing Saddam was seeking yellowcake from them.

Jeez, and I thought you people wanted to learn something; can't learn without reading. If you don't wanna read it, just skip over it.

Me? I prefer to know the truth.

TGOT

You're making this too complicated. Everyone is making this too complicated.

It all comes down to this: We invaded Iraq under the current president because the current president and his administration convinced congress, and the American public, of one simple fact:

Iraq is a threat to America

This was patently untrue. Why does it have to get any more complicated then that?

A sophisticated and calculated campaign was waged, by this administration, to convince the public, the UN, and the Congress that WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellowcake, connections to 9/11, etc., were facts.

They weren't. The administration now admits it.

How are we still debating this?

from the act, tommy

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .

do you not understand that iraq has gone badly wrong? can you not see that we invaded a country that had been just-about held together under ten years of sanctions, which sanctions came after a series of wars? can you not understand that almost 4 years to the day after the official start of the war, the country is far, far more of a mess than it was? can you not see the truth, tommy? has your constant partisan lying totally blinded you?

Skleenar: ...in an vote scheduled for shortly before the midterm elections.

Any politician who voted against it would have been attacked in the campaign as being weak-willed, or a terrorist-lover. (Even more so than they were anyway, and with a specific vote to hang over their heads).

If a candidate in anything but a rock-solid Democratic district took a principled stand and voted against the measure (a measure which could easily be justified, and was, as giving US negotiations the credible threat of a stick to go with the carrots), then we likely would have had a yet another GOP congressman to unseat in 2006.

Your act of principle would very possibly have ensured a GOP congress after the 2006 elections.

This is one of the reasons why I say they should all be looking for new jobs. We the People have to send a clear message to our congresscritters that doing something stupid because they are afraid that they won't be re-elected if they don't won't save them. We have lost control of our government, no, not lost control. We willing gave away control, we let them them know that it doesn't matter what they do, 80% (I think it's 80%) of us that will be bothered to go out and vote care for nothing other than the little letter after their name.

Skleenar: Your act of principle would very possibly have ensured a GOP congress after the 2006 elections.

Obama seems to be the only candidate not tainted by the war. Maybe I am being a little too hard on the Dems who voted for the war.

The thing that pisses me off the most, is that Bush Co. used 9/11 to further their goals. And the rubber stamp congress was a disgrace. The Republicans will definitely not get my vote.

"The CIA approved in advance President George W. Bush's accusation in his January State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to acquire nuclear material from Africa, U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on July 11, 2003. "


"In fact, the Niger story, as documented by journalist Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03) and others, was based on crudely forged documents. In addition, the administration's own investigation in March 2002 concluded that the story was bogus. As one former State Department official put it, "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down"

phillydrifter: Did you get to the part about the burglary of Nigerian government offices, and the most peculiar things that were stolen?

Sure didn't. Why would I? As far as I could tell it was a huge block of unrelated text. If you had put as your post some on topic statment, then your analysis of the support you had for that statement, then a link to the text I may have known what you were talking about. No one is going to read through a huge block of text in the hope that it may eventually be on topic.

Be thorough, but be concise.

Hmm, my last comment comes across as very condescending, my apologies, I did not mean it as such.

Running a-puck

I personally would argue that the current system of two entrenched political parties makes it worse, but in effect, yeah.


I agree, I don't see anything getting better until we get more from the other parties.

the_gospel_of_thomas: *rolls eyes*

But Clinton...again? ;-p

1. The War Powers Act is un-Constitutional. No, it has not been challenged by any court worth its salt, but any idiot can see that it was enacted to allow warmongering Presidents to skirt the official protocol of a Congressional Declaration of War. A caveman could do it.

2. Bush lied to the American people and should be impeached, along with Cheney. He lied about the WMDs, there were none, Saddam was no threat to the United States, and it was also an error to tie him into the War on Terror, which supposedly was to bring the 9/11 attack planners to justice. Bush has never admitted his errors in these policies, and his arrogance to stay the course despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary belies what a miserable failure he is as a leader, and as an example to the rest of democracy worldwide.

3. Sadly, Bush will not be impeached, nor will he be brought to justice for his war crimes for the simple reason that 99% of Congress bought into the lies, and helped bring about the worst US foreign policy klstrfk since Vietnam.

It's a movement from the ground up, and we, the American public, are the ones who failed to vote these people out of office.

priestrape: of one simple fact:

wrong.

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

Saddam Hussein's Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Saddam Hussein's Repression of the Iraqi People

Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Account for Gulf War Prisoners

Saddam Hussein's Refusal to Return Stolen Property

Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions



just because your memory on this is sub-standard, or you get your news from Jon Stewart, is no excuse for being ignorant of the facts of the matter.

Read his entire SOTU addrress, or his speech to the UN. Educate yourself.

Be thorough, but be concise.

Admit it, you're an English teacher.

TGOT

It doesn't matter, because one more resolution is all that was needed to prevent he war, you should know that!

tgot

Dude, the official White House site as a defence for this administration's decisions?

There's plenty out there that are more objective than that. Not to attack the source, but cmon...

You're good at this, and you can do much better than that.

the_gospel_of_thomas, this is a bit ot, but I've a serious question for you. Is there anything that this administration has done that you don't agree with? This is not an attack or an attempt to trap you, I'm just curious.

Poopspasm: Admit it, you're an English teacher.

*chuckle* No, I just like well framed arguments/discussions. phillydrifter may have had some great points to add to the discussion, but we will never know because no one is going to read a wall of text.

whidbey: Sadly, Bush will not be impeached, nor will he be brought to justice for his war crimes for the simple reason that


.... he didn't do anything wrong. ( or illegal )

you would think with all the money the left could raise in a "lets get that bastard bush" PBS-NPR style fund drive, from moveon PAC and george soros, geffen and others, they could ammas a huge fortune to hire as many lawyers as it would take to "bring the light of truth" to Bush's "war crimes" and what not ... and why don't they??

Fark, I'd contribute $100 to the cause, to see in a court of law, how Bush is supposedly guilty.

the_gospel_of_thomas: Educate yourself.

Actually, it's pretty easy to see that the UN didn't want to do it. That would include us. We were told "no" by our fellow sovereign nations, that should have been the end of it.

The majority of the Security Council decided that Saddam was not an imminent threat, and declined to enforce the resolutions. The honorable thing to do would be for the US to switch negotiation teams and diplomatically convince the members otherwise. But no. We said "f*ck you, we're going this alone."

The war is not only illegal in the spirit of the Constitution, it's also illegal under international law, something we're supposed to be the example when it comes to upholding.

TGOT

just because your memory on this is sub-standard, or you get your news from Jon Stewart, is no excuse for being ignorant of the facts of the matter.

Read his entire SOTU addrress, or his speech to the UN. Educate yourself.

Don't be a condescending dick.

I know he violated resolutions. I know he was a world-class, all-time psychopath.

But you're ignoring what I said - we didn't go to war because of farking UN resolutions.

we went to war to stop a threat against the US. This threat did not exist.

Did Iraq pose a threat to the US, TGOT?

And, if they didn't, why would we invade? Not 'how did we justify invading', but WHY would we invade? We're okay with sacrificing 3000 soldiers because he violated UN resolutions?

No. The American people wouldn't support that and that's not how the war was pitched to them.

It was pitched to them as a defense against the Iraqi threat to the US.This was either a lie or a gross miscalulation.

phillydrifter

since the libby verdict I've caught matthews and even tucker bringing up the question of where those docs came from on msnbc.

I hope they keep asking.

that's interesting info about the stolen letterhead and stamps.

tommy - re: all your silly little links


it is quite clear that hussein wanted to play the game his way. what was equally clear was that the measures in place from the time of first gulf war successfully prevented him from doing so

further to this point(which i would like you to dispute, but doubt you will), i put it to you that the administration was well aware of this, and that is why they manufactured a case for war. not only was doing so a mistake, but it was matched by the equally cavalier way that the war was planned. that is why iraq and bush have dragged america drastically down in the opinion of a world that idolizes the country.

Poopspasm: tgot Dude, the official White House site as a defence for this administration's decisions?


the other dude here claimed that Bush sent us to war for "one reason" and thats a bold faced lie.


As evidenced by the links provided.

but other people get all their information from henry waxman ... and that is good enough for them,

the_gospel_of_thomas: .... he didn't do anything wrong. ( or illegal )

you would think with all the money the left could raise in a "lets get that bastard bush" PBS-NPR style fund drive, from moveon PAC and george soros, geffen and others, they could ammas a huge fortune to hire as many lawyers as it would take to "bring the light of truth" to Bush's "war crimes" and what not ... and why don't they??

Fark, I'd contribute $100 to the cause, to see in a court of law, how Bush is supposedly guilty.

Admit it, you are Jeff Gannon and in love with George W. Bush.:)

priestrape

But you're ignoring what I said - we didn't go to war because of farking UN resolutions.

That's a weird spin on the truth isn't it? We wouldn't have gone to war if he complied though, so you are being dishonest in your argument.

So basically we did go to war for that reason, if you don't see that then I'm not sure what else to say.

priestrape: It was pitched to them as a defense against the Iraqi threat to the US.This was either a lie or a gross miscalulation.

Madeleine Albright:

"Iraq Is A Long Way From Ohio, But What Happens There Matters A Great Deal Here, For The Risk That The Leaders Of A Rogue State Will Use Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons Against Us Or Our Allies Is The Greatest Security Threat We Face, And It Is A Threat Against Which We Must And Will Stand Firm." (Madeleine Albright, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Columbus, OH, 2/18/98)


Former President Bill Clinton:

"[O]R We Take Some Ambiguous Third Route Which Gives Him Yet More Opportunities To Develop This Program Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Continue To Press For The Release Of The Sanctions And Continue To Ignore The Solemn Commitments That He Made?" (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, Arlington, VA, 2/17/98)


DNC Chairman Howard Dean:

DEAN: "There Are Such A Thing [Sic] As International Outlaws. I'm Not Sure China Is One, But I Am Quite Sure Iran And Iraq Are." (CBC/PBS' "The Editors," 1/31/98)


Sandy Berger:

"He Will Rebuild His Arsenal Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Someday, Some Way, I Am Certain, He Will Use That Arsenal Again As He Has 10 Times Since 1983." (Sandy Berger, Remarks At Town Hall Meeting, Columbus, OH, 2/18/98)


Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

"Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)


Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV):

Rockefeller: "There Is Unmistakable Evidence That Saddam Hussein Is Working Aggressively To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And Will Likely Have Nuclear Weapons Within The Next Five Years. ... We Also Should Remember We Have Always Underestimated The Progress That Saddam Hussein Has Been Able To Make In The Development Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p.S10306)


Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):

Biden: "We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)


Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):

Reid: "Saddam Hussein, In Effect, Has Thumbed His Nose At The World Community. And I Think That The President's Approaching This In The Right Fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/18/02)


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):

MR. RUSSERT: "Do You Believe We Could Have Disarmament Without Regime Change?" SEN. CLINTON: "I Doubt It." (NBC's "Meet The Press,' 9/15/02)


Sen. Clinton: "I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It's In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security ..." (NBC's "Meet The Press,' 9/15/02)


Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):

Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

From the SotU, 1/28/03

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups. "

you are dragging america down, tommy. you, with your desire for a diet of fox, limbaugh, lgf and freerepublic. not one of those outlets is interested in truth, tommy. do you want america to stand astride the world because of its reputation for truth and justice, or do you want it to stand for bigotry, greed and zealotry? you and small-minded hacks like yourself, small people whose opinion has never counted for anything, because it has always been poorly-informed. you are the people trying to drag america down

the_gospel_of_thomas: the other dude here claimed that Bush sent us to war for "one reason" and thats a bold faced lie.

Feh, anyone who says that any war started for 'one reason' is fooling themselves. That being said, the main casus belli that was being pushed by the administration was that Saddam was a threat to us. That he was a threat to us seems to be an... exageration to say the least.

You know what all of those people you quoted have in common, TGOT?

NONE OF THEM WERE COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN 2003

And you didn't answer my question:

Was Iraq a threat to the US?

21-7-b: you are dragging america down, tommy.

go pound sand.

Geez, the parade of Demo-quotes.

We know they voted in favor of the police action, man. Sheesh.

the_gospel_of_thomas: he didn't do anything wrong. ( or illegal )

Lying to the American public about the reasons to invade a sovereign nation that was no threat to us?

Nothing wrong about that. Hell, I do it all the time...

Fark, I'd contribute $100 to the cause, to see in a court of law, how Bush is supposedly guilty.

you would think with all the money the left could raise in a "lets get that bastard bush" PBS-NPR style fund drive, from moveon PAC and george soros, geffen and others, they could ammas a huge fortune to hire as many lawyers as it would take to "bring the light of truth" to Bush's "war crimes" and what not ... and why don't they??

Damn that's wordy. ;-p

Just "the left," huh? You don't think there's anyone "from the other side" that's disgusted with his abuse of the Constitution and how he's soiled the office of President?

I'd be disgusted.

Fark, I'd contribute $100 to the cause, to see in a court of law, how Bush is supposedly guilty.

Or you could do the math for yourself and send me the hundred.

Bush could be tried for war crimes, certainly.

2007-03-07 06:59:22 PM FlashLV

That's a weird spin on the truth isn't it?

Nope. We were told Iraq was a threat (see the SotU, 2003).

They weren't.

Spin your way around that all you want.

priestrape: Was Iraq a threat to the US?


Madeleine Albright ... Thought so

Former President Bill Clinton ... Thought so

DNC Chairman Howard Dean ... Thought so

Sandy Berger ... Thought so

Rep. Nancy Pelosi ... Thought so

Sen. Jay Rockefeller ... Thought so

Sen. Joe Biden ... Thought so

Sen. Harry Reid ... Thought so

Sen. Hillary Clinton ... Thought so ... Thought so

Former Sen. John Edwards ... Thought so


and I have no reason to challenge them on their words.

the_gospel_of_thomas

so a country that violates a series of UN resolutions should be invaded and occupied at great cost to our country whether or not they are a threat?

I don't think we should be spending all our time and money invading and occupying countries that pose no threat to us.

Leaving now, g'night all. the_gospel_of_thomas I am still interested in the answer to that question I asked. If you don't feel like answering in the public forum you can e-mail it to me at puck at ihateclowns dot commie. You've my word that it won't show up anywhere else.

how many times has the argument for those quotes from democrats been successfully refuted, tommy? how many times have you and the others scuttled off without comment after their context has been shown to you? thousands. easily - thousands on this forum. how many times have those quotes stood up as supporting the way in which you use them after cross-examination of their context, on this forum? i doubt even once

yet you keep posting them, you dishonest litle hack

TGOT

Three times now I've asked you - did you think Iraq was a threat to us?

You still haven't answered it yet. Because the answer makes you look stupid.

tommy

go pound sand.

you are dragging america down, tommy. you, with your desire for a diet of fox, limbaugh, lgf and freerepublic. not one of those outlets is interested in truth, tommy. do you want america to stand astride the world because of its reputation for truth and justice, or do you want it to stand for bigotry, greed and zealotry? you and small-minded hacks like yourself, small people whose opinion has never counted for anything, because it has always been poorly-informed. you are the people trying to drag america down


"go pound sand" is about the best you've got

Let them live in their own reality. Their "team's" willful ignorance will assure a democratic victory in 2008.

I love that some of TGOT's quotes are from 1998...what on Earth does that have to do with 2003?

Is it possible he was a threat in 1998 and less of a threat in 2003? I mean, you can squeeze that logic through your dome, right?

21-7-b: their context


"Iraq is a danger" ... but lets not do anything about it.

"Saddam is a threat" ... but lets give it a few more years.

"Iraq can't continue" ... but lets let them continue.

"We support regime change" ... as long you don't expect us to do it.


Yeah, thats pretty much the context.

you are dragging america down, 21-7-bmmy. you, with your desire for a diet of kos, think progress and the democratic underground.

Madeleine Albright ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Former President Bill Clinton ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

DNC Chairman Howard Dean ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Sandy Berger ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Rep. Nancy Pelosi ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Sen. Jay Rockefeller ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Sen. Joe Biden ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Sen. Harry Reid ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Sen. Hillary Clinton ... Thought so ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

Former Sen. John Edwards ... Thought so - not POTUS in 2003

priestrape: I love that some of TGOT's quotes are from 1998...what on Earth does that have to do with 2003?

Well, it proves that George Bush didn't 'cook the books' on this, and Saddam was a threat in 1998 ... and them magically became a "pain in the neck and a bad person" the second after Bush became president, in the eyes of the democrats.

TGOT

Well, it proves that George Bush didn't 'cook the books' on this, and Saddam was a threat in 1998 ... and them magically became a "pain in the neck and a bad person" the second after Bush became president, in the eyes of the democrats.

No...you're wrong.

All it proves is that one of the following things is true:

1) In 1998, he had the weapons that would make him a threat. By 2003, he didn't

or, more likely,

2) Our government was just as stupid in 1998 as they were in 2003.

How about that? I grant you that the government sucked in 1998, okay?

Now, how many thousand soldiers died in 1998 when we invaded Iraq, attempted regime change, tried to eliminate a threat that didn't exist, had no exit plan, and even managed to fark up the hospital where the wounded from said sham war ended up?

priestrape

Yeah, thats pretty much the context.

that's not the context, tommy. that's you believing the context is what you want it to be and wanting others to believe it too - while trying not to discuss the point

you are dragging america down, 21-7-bmmy. you, with your desire for a diet of kos, think progress and the democratic underground.

the only thing that i am doing is asking for honesty and accountability from government. do explain how that is 'dragging america down'

/ps, i have visited the three site you mention under (around about) 30 times in my entire life

the_gospel_of_thomas: "Iraq is a danger" ... but lets not do anything about it.

"Saddam is a threat" ... but lets give it a few more years.

"Iraq can't continue" ... but lets let them continue.

"We support regime change" ... as long you don't expect us to do it.

Gee, if anything that sounds like uncertainty and second thoughts thinking out loud, like "what if I were wrong? Would I get...re-elected?"

thought so
You don't start wars on a hunch.