Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Like I said, call it what you want, congress gave him the authority, he did not and could not have done it on his own.

Leave it to the GOP-led Congress to flip over like cheap whores and reassign their responsibilities to the executive branch. :roll: Color me unsurprised.

Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

Zero. As you well know, Bush received intel that nobody in Congress got, including special briefings by Tenet.

One would think that particular propaganda point has been exposed enough times the Bush faithful would be ashamed to trot it out again, but I suppose when you're deperate, you blow whatever smoke you can. Mind you I think Congressional Democrats were just as irresponsible and cowardly as Republicans in handing that child a loaded gun, but that does not change the fact that the primary responsibility for the Iraq fiasco falls squarely on the Bush administration. They wanted it, they twisted intel to build a case for it, they lied to sell it. It's their tar baby and they need to stop trying to shift the blame to everyone else.

Actually I think everyone is quite aware that congress did the get the same intel breifing as teh president. And if they did not they really fell down on the job. But if they were fooled by Bush, that does not speak highly of them as the left generaly considers buch a complete idiot....


However dealing with todays problems is not about placing blame. The problems still exist and have to be dealt with.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Like I said, call it what you want, congress gave him the authority, he did not and could not have done it on his own.

Leave it to the GOP-led Congress to flip over like cheap whores and reassign their responsibilities to the executive branch. :roll: Color me unsurprised.

Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

Zero. As you well know, Bush received intel that nobody in Congress got, including special briefings by Tenet.

One would think that particular propaganda point has been exposed enough times the Bush faithful would be ashamed to trot it out again, but I suppose when you're deperate, you blow whatever smoke you can. Mind you I think Congressional Democrats were just as irresponsible and cowardly as Republicans in handing that child a loaded gun, but that does not change the fact that the primary responsibility for the Iraq fiasco falls squarely on the Bush administration. They wanted it, they twisted intel to build a case for it, they lied to sell it. It's their tar baby and they need to stop trying to shift the blame to everyone else.

Actually I think everyone is quite aware that congress did the get the same intel breifing as teh president.

That is simply false. You know better.

And if they did not they really fell down on the job. But if they were fooled by Bush, that does not speak highly of them as the left generaly considers buch a complete idiot....

Now. Back in those days, the Democrats were still largely supportive of Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. They foolishly trusted him to honor his commitments to use force only as a last resort.

However dealing with todays problems is not about placing blame. The problems still exist and have to be dealt with.

Yet the Bush apologists are falling all over themselves trying to blame the Democrats.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Like I said, call it what you want, congress gave him the authority, he did not and could not have done it on his own.

Leave it to the GOP-led Congress to flip over like cheap whores and reassign their responsibilities to the executive branch. :roll: Color me unsurprised.

Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

Zero. As you well know, Bush received intel that nobody in Congress got, including special briefings by Tenet.

One would think that particular propaganda point has been exposed enough times the Bush faithful would be ashamed to trot it out again, but I suppose when you're deperate, you blow whatever smoke you can. Mind you I think Congressional Democrats were just as irresponsible and cowardly as Republicans in handing that child a loaded gun, but that does not change the fact that the primary responsibility for the Iraq fiasco falls squarely on the Bush administration. They wanted it, they twisted intel to build a case for it, they lied to sell it. It's their tar baby and they need to stop trying to shift the blame to everyone else.

Actually I think everyone is quite aware that congress did the get the same intel breifing as teh president.

That is simply false. You know better.

And if they did not they really fell down on the job. But if they were fooled by Bush, that does not speak highly of them as the left generaly considers buch a complete idiot....

Now. Back in those days, the Democrats were still largely supportive of Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. They foolishly trusted him to honor his commitments to use force only as a last resort.

However dealing with todays problems is not about placing blame. The problems still exist and have to be dealt with.

Yet the Bush apologists are falling all over themselves trying to blame the Democrats.

The only thing that the dems are getting blamed for at this point is their collective unwillingness to deal with problems that exist today. There only response to dealing with iraq is to pack up and leave and damn the consequences, even if they are worse than staying.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

Zero. As you well know, Bush received intel that nobody in Congress got, including special briefings by Tenet.

One would think that particular propaganda point has been exposed enough times the Bush faithful would be ashamed to trot it out again, but I suppose when you're deperate, you blow whatever smoke you can. Mind you I think Congressional Democrats were just as irresponsible and cowardly as Republicans in handing that child a loaded gun, but that does not change the fact that the primary responsibility for the Iraq fiasco falls squarely on the Bush administration. They wanted it, they twisted intel to build a case for it, they lied to sell it. It's their tar baby and they need to stop trying to shift the blame to everyone else.

Actually I think everyone is quite aware that congress did the get the same intel breifing as teh president.

That is simply false. You know better.

And if they did not they really fell down on the job. But if they were fooled by Bush, that does not speak highly of them as the left generaly considers buch a complete idiot....

Now. Back in those days, the Democrats were still largely supportive of Bush in the aftermath of 9/11. They foolishly trusted him to honor his commitments to use force only as a last resort.

However dealing with todays problems is not about placing blame. The problems still exist and have to be dealt with.

Yet the Bush apologists are falling all over themselves trying to blame the Democrats.

The only thing that the dems are getting blamed for at this point is their collective unwillingness to deal with problems that exist today. There only response to dealing with iraq is to pack up and leave and damn the consequences, even if they are worse than staying.

In your opinion. There are many people, myself included, who conclude that based on everything we've seen so far, our continuing presence in Iraq is only making things worse. Therefore, the consequence of leaving is that it actually improves the situation in Iraq. It will still be bad, but the Bush camp can't unring that bell no matter how loudly they squeal "cut and run". It's like War Games -- the only way to win was not to play. Bush 41 knew that, as did Dick Cheney apparently.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

I want you to stop posting because you spouted some nonsense and made yourself look like a god damned fool and your posts are a waste of space. Your attempt to spin things make you look even more ridiculous. Your original post:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

If you read actually read the war powers act, you would know the president can conduct war WITHOUT congress' approval. End of story, you lose, too bad so sad. AND STOP POSTING, your words are a waste of disk space and bandwidth

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

I want you to stop posting because you spouted some nonsense and made yourself look like a god damned fool and your posts are a waste of space. Your attempt to spin things make you look even more ridiculous. Your original post:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

If you read actually read the war powers act, you would know the president can conduct war WITHOUT congress' approval. End of story, you lose, too bad so sad. AND STOP POSTING, your words are a waste of disk space and bandwidth

And how many actions have been over in 60days? If iraq was done in 60 this would not even be an issue and republicans would likely still be in power at this point. The president cannot fight a war without approval or funding from congress. At this point bush has both approval and funding provided by congress and there is no other way to spin that.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

I want you to stop posting because you spouted some nonsense and made yourself look like a god damned fool and your posts are a waste of space. Your attempt to spin things make you look even more ridiculous. Your original post:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

If you read actually read the war powers act, you would know the president can conduct war WITHOUT congress' approval. End of story, you lose, too bad so sad. AND STOP POSTING, your words are a waste of disk space and bandwidth

And how many actions have been over in 60days? If iraq was done in 60 this would not even be an issue and republicans would likely still be in power at this point. The president cannot fight a war without approval or funding from congress. At this point bush has both approval and funding provided by congress and there is no other way to spin that.

Except you were doing the spinning:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Which is directly contradicted by the war powers act, thus why your posts are completely worthless and why you should stop posting and let the adults discuss this matter.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

I want you to stop posting because you spouted some nonsense and made yourself look like a god damned fool and your posts are a waste of space. Your attempt to spin things make you look even more ridiculous. Your original post:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

If you read actually read the war powers act, you would know the president can conduct war WITHOUT congress' approval. End of story, you lose, too bad so sad. AND STOP POSTING, your words are a waste of disk space and bandwidth

And how many actions have been over in 60days? If iraq was done in 60 this would not even be an issue and republicans would likely still be in power at this point. The president cannot fight a war without approval or funding from congress. At this point bush has both approval and funding provided by congress and there is no other way to spin that.

Except you were doing the spinning:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Which is directly contradicted by the war powers act, thus why your posts are completely worthless and why you should stop posting and let the adults discuss this matter.

The point of mentioning the war powers act is that even if the president started an action, congress can after 60 days bring it to an end. Between the constitution and the war powers act, the president has very little ability to make war without congressional approval.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A single man should never have the power to declare war.

Take it away, and never give it back.

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

NO! Congress NEVER passed a declaration of war on Iraq. They authorized Bush to use military force as a last resort as a tool to attempt to persuade Saddam to disclose his non-existent WMD's. Instead, he used it as a first resort and foisted lie after lie and excuse after excuse to support the invasion. Those of us who saw through the neocon bullsh8, then, can only shake our heads, now, and wonder why those who should have known better didn't know... or didn't want to know.

In so doing, lead by the Republican majority, they abandoned their Constitutional responiibilty. They were on a roll and continued to abandoned their responsibilities of oversight on everything the Bushwhackos did before and after starting their war of lies.

I don't let the Democrats who voted for the war off the hook, either. The whole thing was a fuster cluck of Congressional anal cranial inversion.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Can you pass some of that crack you're smoking? It must be killer stuff (probably CIA stash). Do you honestly believe Bush would've cared if Congress authorized war or not? Given his track record of breaking laws, i highly doubt a piece of paper made the difference.

IF they would not have passed it, there would have been no need for congress to provide funding for it. It is that simple.

Maybe you should read some history, ever since the Korean War, presidents have 'given' themselves the power to use the military by saying it's a 'police action' without congressional approval. That and the fact that you neo-cons keep coming up with this B.S. about Saddam violated this or that U.N. treaty or 'this is just the extention of the previous gulf war'... be honest with yourself, do you honestly believe bush would have not invaded Iraq regardless of congress? You're delusional if you think that.

Maybe you should read up on the war powers act. Congress does not have to provide funding. If funding was not provided, it would not have happened as it would not have been possible.

The president can conduct war without congress' approval for 60 days. At the very least, he would have 2 months to conduct a war. Read the act. P.S. STOP POSTING.

You want me to stop posting because you have lost this debate. Without congressional approval or funding a war is impossible.

I want you to stop posting because you spouted some nonsense and made yourself look like a god damned fool and your posts are a waste of space. Your attempt to spin things make you look even more ridiculous. Your original post:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

If you read actually read the war powers act, you would know the president can conduct war WITHOUT congress' approval. End of story, you lose, too bad so sad. AND STOP POSTING, your words are a waste of disk space and bandwidth

And how many actions have been over in 60days? If iraq was done in 60 this would not even be an issue and republicans would likely still be in power at this point. The president cannot fight a war without approval or funding from congress. At this point bush has both approval and funding provided by congress and there is no other way to spin that.

Except you were doing the spinning:

It has never been that way in this county, It is congress who has the power to declare war and they allowed the president to do it.

No matter what you want to call it, congress allowed it to happen. Without congressional approval it would not have happened.

Which is directly contradicted by the war powers act, thus why your posts are completely worthless and why you should stop posting and let the adults discuss this matter.

The point of mentioning the war powers act is that even if the president started an action, congress can after 60 days bring it to an end. Between the constitution and the war powers act, the president has very little ability to make war without congressional approval.

I'm going to indulge you. For the sake of discussion, we'll ignore the fact that you were completely ignorant about the president's actual war powers.

"the president has very little ability to make war"

Once again, untrue, the war powers act gives the president authority to make war without congress's permission. It doesn't give him the ability to sustain wars after 60 days. You argued the 1st point, then switched over to the 2nd point to try to salvage yourself. This is getting quite embarrassing for you. Of course the 2nd point is weak because no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war of this magnitude in 2 months. It really wasn't after a while that we found out what a horrible mistake the war was. In 2 months, rummy was gloating like a little b1tch about what a great success the war was.

edit: oh p.s., your posts are still worthless.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I'm going to indulge you. For the sake of discussion, we'll ignore the fact that you were completely ignorant about the president's actual war powers.

"the president has very little ability to make war"

Once again, untrue, the war powers act gives the president authority to make war without congress's permission. It doesn't give him the ability to sustain wars after 60 days. You argued the 1st point, then switched over to the 2nd point to try to salvage yourself. This is getting quite embarrassing for you. Of course the 2nd point is weak because no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war of this magnitude in 2 months. It really wasn't after a while that we found out what a horrible mistake the war was. In 2 months, rummy was gloating like a little b1tch about what a great success the war was.

My point stlll stands, between the constitution and the war powers act, the president has very little ability to make war without congressional funding or approval. I dont know how many times i can restate this and have you not understand that.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus
I'm going to indulge you. For the sake of discussion, we'll ignore the fact that you were completely ignorant about the president's actual war powers.

"the president has very little ability to make war"

Once again, untrue, the war powers act gives the president authority to make war without congress's permission. It doesn't give him the ability to sustain wars after 60 days. You argued the 1st point, then switched over to the 2nd point to try to salvage yourself. This is getting quite embarrassing for you. Of course the 2nd point is weak because no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war of this magnitude in 2 months. It really wasn't after a while that we found out what a horrible mistake the war was. In 2 months, rummy was gloating like a little b1tch about what a great success the war was.

My point stlll stands, between the constitution and the war powers act, the president has very little ability to make war without congressional funding or approval. I dont know how many times i can restate this and have you not understand that.

No, your point is still pitifully weak. The president can make war as much as he pleases. You original argued that if it wasn't for congress giving the authority to wage war, then bush never would've had the ability to do it. That makes you ignorant.

Then you try to make the 2nd point about funding in order to spin the argument. And it doesn't even work because if you had any intellectual honesty, you know damn well that no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war after 60 days after the president starts the ball rolling and "makes war" (as you say). that makes you dishonest

And what do these two things add up to? Worthless posts by you.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You're splitting hairs and you know it.

Congress passed a resolution that gave Bush the power to declare or not declare war as he saw fit.

Congress never should have passed such a thing at all, but even though they did, they did not 'declare war' in any manner.

Bush was improperly given the authority to use force as a last resort, and instead used it as a first resort.

Like I said, call it what you want, congress gave him the authority, he did not and could not have done it on his own.

This has nothing to do with 'call it what you want'. Congress acted irresponsibly, and should not have a free pass here, but Bush made the final decision, which is not the way it is supposed to work, and furthermore, there is no doubt that he had made that decision before receiving his last resort authorization.

Selling the war in Iraq was a two-year con-job by the administration; that's not what anyone 'wants to call it', it's just the way it is.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

I can't believe there are still people who believe this. But on the other hand, there are still people who believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11 (Thanks to W)

But you, Charrison? I can't believe you believe this. Are you really posting stuff you know to be false? Have you fallen in with the likes of PJ, Crimson, Zendari, and the others like them?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
Like I said, call it what you want, congress gave him the authority, he did not and could not have done it on his own.

Leave it to the GOP-led Congress to flip over like cheap whores and reassign their responsibilities to the executive branch. :roll: Color me unsurprised.

Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

Well let's see ... In the senate 29 dems voted for the resolution in 2002, 21 voted against it. ALL Republicans voted for it except for Chafee (RI). Sen Byrd (D-WV) tried to actually filibuster against the resolution. In the House, only 6 Republicans joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

I can't believe there are still people who believe this. But on the other hand, there are still people who believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11 (Thanks to W)

But you, Charrison? I can't believe you believe this. Are you really posting stuff you know to be false? Have you fallen in with the likes of PJ, Crimson, Zendari, and the others like them?

Charrison's been peddling this crap about everyone seeing the same intel for years now. It's simply not true. Our country's intel services are under the direct control of the executive branch, which has access to all intel. Congress does not receive routine access to certain intelligence and the executive has the authority to restrict the flow of intel to Congress.

What a complete load, Charrison. Just knock it off already.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

I can't believe there are still people who believe this. But on the other hand, there are still people who believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11 (Thanks to W)

But you, Charrison? I can't believe you believe this. Are you really posting stuff you know to be false? Have you fallen in with the likes of PJ, Crimson, Zendari, and the others like them?

Charrison's been peddling this crap about everyone seeing the same intel for years now. It's simply not true. Our country's intel services are under the direct control of the executive branch, which has access to all intel. Congress does not receive routine access to certain intelligence and the executive has the authority to restrict the flow of intel to Congress.

What a complete load, Charrison. Just knock it off already.

So all your Democratic heroes talking about WMDs were because Bush pulled their strings? And you call him stupid.....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

I can't believe there are still people who believe this. But on the other hand, there are still people who believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11 (Thanks to W)

But you, Charrison? I can't believe you believe this. Are you really posting stuff you know to be false? Have you fallen in with the likes of PJ, Crimson, Zendari, and the others like them?

Charrison's been peddling this crap about everyone seeing the same intel for years now. It's simply not true. Our country's intel services are under the direct control of the executive branch, which has access to all intel. Congress does not receive routine access to certain intelligence and the executive has the authority to restrict the flow of intel to Congress.

What a complete load, Charrison. Just knock it off already.

So all your Democratic heroes talking about WMDs were because Bush pulled their strings? And you call him stupid.....

First of all jackass, they're not my "heroes." Second of all, yes it appears that to be the case. The Bush Administration systematically manipulated the intel and then hyped it in order to sell war to both Congress and to the American People.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Phokus
I'm going to indulge you. For the sake of discussion, we'll ignore the fact that you were completely ignorant about the president's actual war powers.

"the president has very little ability to make war"

Once again, untrue, the war powers act gives the president authority to make war without congress's permission. It doesn't give him the ability to sustain wars after 60 days. You argued the 1st point, then switched over to the 2nd point to try to salvage yourself. This is getting quite embarrassing for you. Of course the 2nd point is weak because no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war of this magnitude in 2 months. It really wasn't after a while that we found out what a horrible mistake the war was. In 2 months, rummy was gloating like a little b1tch about what a great success the war was.

My point stlll stands, between the constitution and the war powers act, the president has very little ability to make war without congressional funding or approval. I dont know how many times i can restate this and have you not understand that.

No, your point is still pitifully weak. The president can make war as much as he pleases. You original argued that if it wasn't for congress giving the authority to wage war, then bush never would've had the ability to do it. That makes you ignorant.

Then you try to make the 2nd point about funding in order to spin the argument. And it doesn't even work because if you had any intellectual honesty, you know damn well that no congress in their right mind would pull the plug on a war after 60 days after the president starts the ball rolling and "makes war" (as you say). that makes you dishonest

And what do these two things add up to? Worthless posts by you.

And at any point congress can pull funding or support for the constitution. It is dishonest to believe otherwise. I will say it again, without congressional funding or support the president has limited ability to make war.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: charrison
Tell me again how many democrats voted for the war resolution after getting the same inteligence ther president did? Like it not, the democrats are going to have deal with this issue now.

I can't believe there are still people who believe this. But on the other hand, there are still people who believe Iraq is responsible for 9/11 (Thanks to W)

But you, Charrison? I can't believe you believe this. Are you really posting stuff you know to be false? Have you fallen in with the likes of PJ, Crimson, Zendari, and the others like them?

Oh come on, he always was and will always be a Republican puppet.