"...The Next Messiah." - Bawbwa Wawa on Obama

Oh, that's right, the use of Military Force against Iraq would not be considered War. LOL

 

Don't get me wrong. I was against both Iraq incursions and Afghanistan but I find it funny that the libs try and re-write history.

 

I dont really think its funny to lie to an entire nation.

Its pretty sick if you ask me...

 

I kind of rehashed that for myself.because it's important to remember.
That is what Obama and Democrats rely upon.Since Dimocrats & Obama
Lie as a matter of course,they also want to rewrite history and what happened
under different presidents.In fact,Obama is banking on the American people
forgetting all about his many statements in 2007 and 2008.
Now it's gotten so corrupt,Obama the Meek is actually banking on his
Moron base forgetting what he said a mere month ago.

 

Do you mean the Lie of WMD.And Bush going to war in Iraq over that lie. ?

 

You mean the lie that Colon Powell told? You mean the lie that Hillary Clinton voted for? You mean the lie that John Kerry voted for? You mean the lie that Joe Biden voted for? You mean the lie that Bill Clinton told? You mean the lie that Madaline Albright told? You mean the lie that Sandy Berger told?

Is that the lie youre talking about?

 

Wow! What "stunning" and "thorough" work you have put forth in your "well reasoned rationale".
A "brilliant" rebuttal, all in all.

I particularly like the way you didn't address a single fact presented, even ignoring your own admission that help was assembled and standing by, but was never ever called on! It so bolsters your contention that such a thing was impractical and couldn't happen. no

Let's just politely file your non response and self claimed victory here as partisan cluelessness, and that you really have demonstrated you don't know wtf you are talking about, and leave it at that.
I don't know why anyone bothers engaging someone that specializes in such shameless bull-crap.

Fail indeed! What an appropriate self supplied critique of your own total lack of effort or reason.

 

oh I know...

Bill Clinton should have taken Saddam out for violating the surrender, on multiple occasions, but no he was too busy playing with his new humidor...

 

LOL, I guess I was wrong. You weren't actually reading the joint authorization text for the first time, but searching for your old standby, the internet video.

You didn't quote the text from your own source showing they were voting to go to war. And for a good reason. It says no such thing. Here it is:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338 ).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148 ), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.


Please provide an apology. Thanks

 

Could be. But the joint authorization did not even require or mandate the use of force. It just authorized Bush to make the decision, *if* he determined diplomatic means failed.

There was no "vote to go to war." That's just RW propaganda the gullible lap up hook line and sinker. The decision to go to war, and how to go to war, was made by Bush.

But I can see why you conservatives would try to blame the Dems for that disastrous mistake.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly true. Iraq was no "urgent threat" as Bush himself lied.

 

What 15-0 security council vote to use force? Source and link please.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny, its the cons on this thread who are re-writing history.

 

You made the claim. You utterly failed to provide even one basis to back it up.

You have to ask yourself why you bother with yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Clinton should have made the same stupid blunder Bush did? Hardly.

 

I believe bill clinton over you, and thats pretty sad.

 

You wont receive an apology for spewing bs.

List of United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, 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.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

 

They don't call it a vote to go to war.That is a layman's terminology.
The vote is to satisfy Congressional approval.
In this Country,Congress controls the purse and whether or not to
War with another country.That is until this Obama fellar.
Under this Imperial presidency it just takes Obama's whim or
consent of his inner circle of commies { Czars }.
BTW the Security Council Unanimous 15-0 vote for " possible " use of force against
Iraq was Resolution 1441 or offering Saddam a final opportunity to
comply or else.
1441 was implemented care of the November 8,2002 security Council vote of 15-0.
It had wider support than the 1990 Gulf War resolution { # 678 }.

 

Bill Clinton did not make the tragic decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush did.

- - - Updated - - -

US security council resolutions have what to do with your false assertion that "Hillary Clinton and John Kerry both voted for war in Iraq, multiple times" how?

Do you think Clinton and Kerry were security council voting members?

 

They mention war numerous times in the preamble. So much for that argument.

 

Splitting hairs.

- - - Updated - - -

And Obama is the most honest President ever! Bwaaaahahahahaha.

 

Disagree. The Joint Authorization was passed 6 months before Bush started the war (purposely set two weeks before the elections so Republicans could villify those who voted against it in a period of nationalist fervor). It was not a decision on whether to go to war or not. Even the Bush administration wasn't claiming it was approval to "go to war". It was, as Senator Clinton explained, a warning to Hussein to cooperate by giving the Bush administration to use force, *if* he tried diplomacy and determined it would not work.

Ironically, the threat had its affect. Hussein opened his borders to UN inspection without restrictions, and the UN inspectors made hundreds of spot inspections to find the WMD Hussein supposedly had.

But none of that really mattered to the neocons who controlled the administration and had their sites on removing Hussein from well before Bush got elected. Even though hundreds of unannounced, unrestricted inspections found no evidence of the WMD that was supposedly there, the Bush administration -- and the Bush administration alone -- made the decision to stop the inspections, and invade and occupy Iraq.

Those were the Bush administration's decision and their decisions alone.

I agree, however, you can look in hindsight and criticize those Dems who voted to give Bush that responsibility (not that it would have mattered in the final vote in the Republican controlled Congress). In hindsight, it is easy to see that giving the Bush administration that power and responsibility was a big mistake.

And Bush is the most honest President ever! Bwaaaahahahahaha.

 

So how many " neocons " made up the 80% of the Populace who favored Bush's
Foreign policy regarding Saddam ?
How many " neocons " in Congress voted to support Bush's view of Iraq.
" neocons " like Wolfowitz and journalists Bill Kristol are the convenient excuse
given as talking pts. to " *******s ".
Just bandy about the word " neocon " as if " Birther " and that is supposed to
really do it for Liberals and democrats.
It is juvenile and what one should expect when in grade school.

 

It is just another proxy word that libs use meaning "evil".

 

Neocons like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Bolton dominated the Bush administration's policy on Iraq.