If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Paleocon)   Congress will never investigate whether we were lied into war in Iraq because it would also mean that Congress failed in its constitutional duty to determine the necessity for war   (townhall.com) divider line 130
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Mar 2007 at 4:41 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-03-07 07:17:58 PM
Running a-puck: 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.


Bush has said in the past, that because of the terror attack on our soil that destroyed the twin towers, we can't behave the same way as before that happened.

Before, at the previous attack on the towers, they failed, and there was a minimal loss of live, and this even was an eye opener to the level of destruction that was always possible, but after this action, ( and especially the critics that Bush didn't do enough to connect the dots ) that the president is required to protect the United States from attack, and he elected to aggressively pursue the people who would come to us, seeking the murder of many thousands of Americans ....

On countries that have not violated international laws, such as North Korea, we are more limited in what we can do.

In the example of Iraq, there were in clear violation, and Bush could have chosen to let the UN dick around for another decade ... or enforce the violations of the cease-fire from 1991.
 
2007-03-07 07:20:05 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas:
You're kidding right? except for WMDs and terrorism this administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the rest of that crap.
If they truly did, we would go to a new war every month, i don't care what they put on the web page.



If you remember correctly it was Saddam's refusal to hand over his WMD's that was the final straw. He even let the weapons inspectors in once he realized we meant buisness, but it wasn't enough.
*sigh* he should have just handed them over.

You know he still hasn't given us those WMDs... And my neighbor's cousin's friend's aunt Nellie said he gave them to Iran. Let's get 'em! Kill Kill Kill!!!
 
2007-03-07 07:20:50 PM
tommy

do you even understand that saddam was not responsible for 9/11?
 
2007-03-07 07:20:53 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: In the example of Iraq, there were in clear violation, and Bush could have chosen to let the UN dick around for another decade ... or enforce the violations of the cease-fire from 1991.

Ignore the UN so we can enforce their resolutions. Makes a lot of sense.
 
2007-03-07 07:26:08 PM
tommy

have you been following the news from afghanistan, tommy?
 
2007-03-07 07:26:26 PM
tgot

[...] he elected to aggressively pursue the people who would come to us, seeking the murder of many thousands of Americans ....

So why aren't American troops in Saudi Arabia?

And how, pray, would the Iraqis "come to us"? By swimming?
 
2007-03-07 07:28:27 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: Bush could have chosen to let the UN dick around for another decade ... or enforce the violations of the cease-fire from 1991.

I guess I don't see a decade of hard diplomacy versus a trillion in the hole and thousand upon thousands of lives as "dicking around"...
 
2007-03-07 07:33:03 PM
priestrape

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

They weren't.

Spin your way around that all you want.



There's only spin from your side, believe it or not.

What's so hard to see that the UN resolutions failing was the ONLY reason we went to war. If you don't see that then you are letting your partisanship control your thoughts.
 
2007-03-07 07:35:17 PM
FlashLV

What's so hard to see that the UN resolutions failing was the ONLY reason we went to war.

Yes. you are completely right.
 
2007-03-07 07:38:33 PM
FlashLV: I agree, I don't see anything getting better until we get more from the other parties.


I, for one, certainly hope some party steps up to the plate.
 
2007-03-07 07:41:21 PM
www.workingforchange.com
 
2007-03-07 07:42:31 PM
Running a-puck: *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.

Which is how the war was perpetrated in the first place.

Admit it, we've been socialized (some say 'engineered') to not care about government actions/accountability.

All most Americans care about is the latest gossip on Britney or Paris or American Idol, etc etc ad infinitum.

I'm just hoping i can convince one or two, just one or two of you, to start writing your elected officials and pressuring them into impeachment of not only Bush but also Cheney, Rove, Rice, and Rumsfeld.

www.davesilvan.com

Being patriotic has never been so easy. All you have to do is enter your zip code, click the corresponding 'Go!' and you get all your elected officials, from GWB all the way down to your county reps.

But instead you continue to blather here, where it makes no difference and will be forgotten within a week.
 
2007-03-07 07:43:35 PM
Thank God the Walter Reed scandal is off the front page!

Did you know IAP worldwide services, the company thats been handling Walter Reed hospital due to Bush's privatization efforts isn't even a public traded company? It's totally private and held by plugged in people like Dan Quayle who is on the board. Your tax dollars at work - making scumbag republicans richer.
 
2007-03-07 07:47:22 PM
FlashLV

if you actually look at the documented "reasons" with hindsight, actually read through it, it is quite clear that most of the reasons were complete and total bullshiat
 
2007-03-07 07:54:28 PM
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.

Nice. Er, I mean "whoops."
 
2007-03-07 08:01:26 PM
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);


www.ac.wwu.edu
 
2007-03-07 08:02:17 PM
REVOLT!
 
2007-03-07 08:03:34 PM

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;


www.shelleytherepublican.com
 
2007-03-07 08:05:42 PM
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;


www.diosa.net
 
2007-03-07 08:15:35 PM
the rest are bs too
 
2007-03-07 09:26:09 PM
Well I just wanted to tell you all that I practiced what I preached earlier in this thread, went to congress.org and punched in my zip and sent letters to Casey and Specter.

I even noted in the letter to Specter that I understand he and the president are of the same political party, and that I hoped he wouldn't let it prevent him from taking appropriate action in the impeachment proceedings.
 
2007-03-07 09:42:56 PM
phillydrifter
Well I just wanted to tell you all that I practiced what I preached earlier in this thread, went to congress.org and punched in my zip and sent letters to Casey and Specter.

You'll be overturning police cars and lobbing molotovs willy-nilly in no time!
 
2007-03-07 09:51:16 PM
21-7-b

Good link you posted there - Iraq on the record
 
2007-03-07 10:27:43 PM
the_gospel_of_thomas: Riigghhtt .....

wouldn't that be awesome to get someone to prove that in a court of law?

Cause, I'd like to see someone try, to put up, or to shut up.


You always accept what you want to accept. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence. If there is a 1% change that you could be right you will accept that with your full being over anything else and reject the other 99%.

Have you ever been wrong?
 
2007-03-07 10:29:49 PM
spucky: Have you ever been wrong?

Hey, look the White House published those links posted earlier.

They wouldn't lie--er I mean MISLEAD anyone about that stuff.

Unrefutable, attack-proof justification for invading Iraq. Absolutely.

Yeah.
 
2007-03-07 11:26:45 PM
inglixthemad:
Yeah, they did shirk their duty, out of party allegiance (cowardice) or from wishing to appear strong and united (cowardice).

I don't I heard a lot of high ranking Senators on both sides who had high security clearances state unequivanantly that Saddam needed to be taken out and that they had examined all the evidence. Personally I think everyone was duped, including the President. But people are more interested in a witchhunt than the truth.
 
2007-03-08 12:33:10 AM
MindStalker: Personally I think everyone was duped, including the President.

How convenient.

. But people are more interested in a witchhunt than the truth.

The truth's been told: the Emperor Has no Clothes.

Even in the private sector a CEO involved in a policy f*ckup would be given the boot.

Bush's mishandling is far worse. Tell me, as an impartial observer, what should be done with him?
 
2007-03-08 09:40:34 AM
whidbey: Definatly Bush sucks, and has done a poor job. I'm just tired of the senators saying "We were all duped by the President". When many of them had the security clearance to know as much as the President himself knew and have been in office longer than him.
 
2007-03-08 11:23:04 AM
2007-03-07 06:15:55 PM phillydrifter

Interesting read
 
2007-03-08 07:51:34 PM
spucky: Even in the face of overwhelming evidence.


if the "evidence" is overwhelming, then it should be a slam dunk to get a conviction.

So?

Let's geit it on!
 
Displayed 30 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report