Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 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.

Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD. I've heard Bill Clinton say the same thing recently. The concensus now is that there no WMD, OK everybody was wrong. This tinfoil conspiracy whereby Bush is an evil genius and purposefully & masterfully fooled the entire planet is ridiculous. It's more a failure of our (and everybody elses) intellegence service.

The concensus is also that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that it is GWB & co.'s fault. There is no need make silly claims about the (nonexistant) unlimited power of the POTUS, Congress did give him the authority, Congress has provided funds for this now for several years. There is no need to argue otherwise -because (1) it's true, (2) Congress has largely escaped blame, and Dems have completely escaped any blame. IMHO, there is no need to argue.

Rather the question is what now? The Dems ran on their anti-war platform and won. If they, like some of you, really believe the correct course is leave now, why are they willing to fund this war for another year?

Is it because they don't actually believe a pullout is the correct path?

The Dems have the power, why do they not use it?

Why bother to blow millions in campaigning to get that power if you're not going to use it?

The situation in Washington disgusts me. Non-binding resolutions my @ss. Revisist the 2002 authorization?, please -that's a stall tactic to avoid the problem at hand

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 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.

Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD. I've heard Bill Clinton say the same thing recently.

The concensus now is that there no WMD, OK everybody was wrong.

This tinfoil conspiracy whereby Bush is an evil genius and purposefully & masterfully fooled the entire planet is ridiculous. It's more a failure of our (and everybody elses) intellegence service.

The concensus is also that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that it is GWB & co.'s fault. There is no need make silly claims about the (nonexistant) unlimited power of the POTUS, Congress did give him the authority, Congress has provided funds for this now for several years. There is no need to argue otherwise -because (1) it's true, (2) Congress has largely escaped blame, and Dems have completely escaped any blame. IMHO, there is no need to argue.

Rather the question is what now? The Dems ran on their anti-war platform and won. If they, like some of you, really believe the correct course is leave now, why are they willing to fund this war for another year?

Is it because they don't actually believe a pullout is the correct path?

The Dems have the power, why do they not use it?

Why bother to blow millions in campaigning to get that power if you're not going to use it?

The situation in Washington disgusts me. Non-binding resolutions my @ss. Revisist the 2002 authorization?, please -that's a stall tactic to avoid the problem at hand

If everyone was wrong as you say don't you think it would be wise for the ring leader of the "wrong" operation to admit it was wrong?

Of course not, we get "Stay the course" and you agree with your "wrong" hero.

Pathetic

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

...... we get "Stay the course" and you agree with your "wrong" hero.

Pathetic

Dave, you know I have concerns about the possible negative ramifications of a pullout. It's just that simple.

Can you, or would you care to attempt to explain why the Dems now in power are afraid to excercise their power?

TIA,

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
...... we get "Stay the course" and you agree with your "wrong" hero.

Pathetic

Dave, you know I have concerns about the possible negative ramifications of a pullout. It's just that simple.

Can you, or would you care to attempt to explain why the Dems now in power are afraid to excercise their power? TIA

Give me a break, they are limited on their "power" and you know it.

Look back at the last 7 years of destruction of this country and the world by your heroes before whining about the Dems new minor control for two lousy months.

Here's your and all the rest of the resident Republicans whining in this same unison manner deserved

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
...... we get "Stay the course" and you agree with your "wrong" hero.

Pathetic

Dave, you know I have concerns about the possible negative ramifications of a pullout. It's just that simple.

Can you, or would you care to attempt to explain why the Dems now in power are afraid to excercise their power? TIA

Give me a break, they are limited on their "power" and you know it.

Look back at the last 7 years of destruction of this country and the world by your heroes before whining about the Dems new minor control for two lousy months.

Here's your and all the rest of the resident Republicans whining in this same unison manner deserved

They've got the majority in both houses, everybody knows it. All they have to do is de-fund the war and you get your wish for immediate & complete withdrawl. Everybody knows that too.

Why do you defend the Dems for their apparent lack of guts in making a decision & excercise their power?

Fern

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fern
Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD.

Yep. They sure did.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Fern
Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD.

Yep. They sure did.

I posted the same comment in the thread about this clip. Strangely, the Bush faithful are avoiding that thread in droves.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Fern
Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD.

Yep. They sure did.

I posted the same comment in the thread about this clip. Strangely, the Bush faithful are avoiding that thread in droves.

Sort of reminds me of what Colin Powell told his chief of staff after the speach he gave to the UN on going to war with Iraq over the WMD issue...

What are people going to think when we drop 150,000 troops into Iraq, march from one end of the country to the other, and find absolutely nothing?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Fern
Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD.

Yep. They sure did.

I posted the same comment in the thread about this clip. Strangely, the Bush faithful are avoiding that thread in droves.

I don't consider myself a Bush faithful. I will defend my recollection of events, which have undergone a mass re-write of history. (I'm not sure what the point of the video is, nor what import as the remarks were made in Feb '01, Bush was only sworn in Jan 20, '01)


A few samples:

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

Also, according to an increasing number of published accounts, it was likely that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were getting much the same information about Iraq and al-Qaida as Bill Clinton and Al Gore had received, if for no other reason than because both administrations were making similar claims.

One such report was published by The Weekly Standard in its July 5-12 issue. Stephen F. Hayes, author of the new book "The Connection: How al-Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America," says Clinton administration officials in the late 1990s and beyond were making regular references to Saddam, his WMD programs and association with al-Qaida.

For example, Hayes writes that just two years ago, in July 2002, former Clinton State Department spokesman James Rubin hosted a PBS documentary that examined "the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein."

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction," Rubin said. "Now there are suggestions he is working with al-Qaida, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."

Clinton-Gore 'Amnesia'


Hayes goes on to point out that the most "striking case of political amnesia" goes to the top two Clintonites ? former Vice President Gore and the man himself, Bill Clinton.

On June 24, "Today" show co-host Katie Couric, not known for her tenacity of questioning regarding Democrats and liberals, interviewed Clinton and asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?"


Clinton, of course, didn't know. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."


The same day, Gore ? in a venomous speech at Georgetown University School of Law ? accused Bush of "intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. If he is not lying, if he genuinely believes that, that makes them [sic] unfit in battle against al-Qaida. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge?"


Really?


Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton ? speaking at the Pentagon ? warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

 

[Engineer]

The point of the video is that there were those high ranking officials in our own government that clearly stated that Iraq had no WMD's. The war was a scam on the American people and the rest of the world.

As for all the crap of cut and run, I'm still waiting on the communist to take over since we left Vietnam (as was the talk of the times then).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Engineer
The point of the video is that there were those high ranking officials in our own government that clearly stated that Iraq had no WMD's. The war was a scam on the American people and the rest of the world.

As for all the crap of cut and run, I'm still waiting on the communist to take over since we left Vietnam (as was the talk of the times then).

AS the lists demonstrates, there were those in our government who believed he did. His (Clinton et al) comments were made b4 Powel's etc.

Again, these poeple just got into office.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Engineer
The point of the video is that there were those high ranking officials in our own government that clearly stated that Iraq had no WMD's. The war was a scam on the American people and the rest of the world.

As for all the crap of cut and run, I'm still waiting on the communist to take over since we left Vietnam (as was the talk of the times then).

AS the lists demonstrates, there were those in our government who believed he did. His (Clinton et al) comments were made b4 Powel's etc.

Again, these poeple just got into office.

So? Powell didn't know anything? A general from Gulf War I.

I'm not going to debate this as there is no point. The war was a scam and the intelligence was cherry picked and stretched, period. Regardless of what the others said, you didn't see them jump into Iraq head first nor did they pound the WMD propagand into our media day after day after day (not to mention into the UN, etc). As to how to clean up this mess nobody (and I mean nobody) knows how it will turn out whether we stay or go. A short while ago, the war drums were beating for North Korea and that seems to have taken care of itself, just like Vietnam.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fern
Pretty much every other country's government on this planet believed the same thing, that Saddam had WMD.

Sorry---that oft posted ditty fails the logic sniff test---Rummy and friends KNEW Iraq was a paper tiger---but for propaganda purposes had to inflate the threat posed by Saddam well past any known logic to justify the invasion----and if they KNEW Iraq posed ANY threat they damn sure well would not have gone in with an absurdly light invasion force.

The point being they KNEW their absurdly light invasion force would be far past what was needed to defeat the Iraqi army-----what Rummy did not understand will be the subject of many
scholarly works that boil down to how stupid can any man be----but there will be no doubt that RUMMY KNEW SADDAM WAS A PAPER TIGER---AND POSED NO THREAT.--And had no WMD.

Simple logic like I outlined demonstrates that.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are they stupid? Keeping this war going till 2008 guarantees Democrat sweep on election night. Democrats should say they are against this war, and they strongly recommend Bush bring troops back, but then say that it's up to him as the President to fix this mess. They need to wash their hands of this debacle, let Republicans sink in it.

Yes they might be.
Democrats might be too stupid to do as they were told by the last election.
If they force a removal their hands will also be bloodied.

 

[kage69]

If they force a removal their hands will also be bloodied.

Their hands have already been bloodied... by the deaths of thousands due to being Bushwacked like the rest of us. While I usually view Dems with a huge amount of skepticism and doubt, I applaud them for doing what they can to stop what never should have happened in the first place.

There is nothing noble about throwing lives and money at a problem you can't fix, to say nothing of playing into the enemy's hand or alienating our own allies.

It's those more concerned with image than life who look stupid. When they repeat the run-up-to-war talking points (many of which are irrelevant, others just flat out wrong) it just makes them look retarded.

 

[Lemon law]

Have any of you watched deal or no deal on TV---you start by having a 1/26 chance of having the million dollars in your briefcase---and as the game progresses and the other briefcases are opened---you get a clue about what are the odds your briefcase holds doodly squat.---and if you play too long---the odds of doodly squat can turn into the certainty of doodly squat.

Iraq is a real life version of deal or no deal----and GWB has bungled his briefcase away---at some point in time you realize that you ain't gonna win the top prize and start to cut your loses. So the current question in Iraq is how we can get SOME SEMBLANCE OF A STABLE IRAQ---which means we have to get both national unity---that requires congressional consultation. And we need international co-operation.-------neither thing is happening under GWB&co.---ipso ergo---GWB&co. are not rational players. And will end up with doodly squat
out of Iraq if we stay their idiotic course.--------and the consequences of winning nothing far exceeds what they could have gained by winning the top prize.---because a broader mid-east war triggered by an Iraqi civil war will probably ignite a world wide depression just for starters.

Project for a new American century---not hardly---sounds like its turned into the plan to doom America if we leave GWB&co in charge.

 

[JungleMan1]

Sounds familiar..."I voted for the war before I voted against it"

 

[piasabird]

Millions of voting fools did not vote for the resolution to go to war, however, Hillary Clinton did. By using Democratic logic she must be gotten rid of.

 

[kage69]

Sounds familiar..."I voted for the war before I voted against it"

Yeah, turning a blind-eye to recent history to make a jab against someone who doesn't matter anymore is pretty familiar too...

Realizing you've been duped is an exercise in humility, attempting to rectify the results of being duped is an act of responsibility guided by conscious.

I'm puzzled at how that is somehow deemed worse or less honorable than listening to the crowd that led us into this tar pit of a fiasco in the first place. The same crowd that still shows a complete detachment from reality no less...

 

[KurskKnyaz]

That is retarded. What is the point of withdawing if the region will fall into chaos and we will have to go back under far worse conditions to fix what we should have done right the first time.

...yes, if we create several new Afghanistans we will be back. It is just a matter of time. I will scan and post an excellent Times article where General Zini, who was critical of the war, is against withdrawing.

 

[dyna]

The democrats could be making a huge mistake by removing the troops. As much as I would like the war to end, the US has some responsibility to the country it attacked. We could be opening ourselves to a whole new set of problems if we leave too soon.

 

[SonnyDaze]

So are the Democrats changing their minds or just going back on their word?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
So are the Democrats changing their minds or just going back on their word?

Democrats are apparently allowed to change their minds on just about anything... ever... as often as they'd like... even if it's the exact opposite of what they promised their voters before they got elected.

In that way, and only that way, the Democrats remind me of my wife!

 

[kage69]

Democrats are apparently allowed to change their minds on just about anything... ever... as often as they'd like... even if it's the exact opposite of what they promised their voters before they got elected.

Too funny. You just described W's record quite well. Gay marriage amendment? SS reform? Not nation building? Firing anyone who leaked classified identities?
But then he doesn't have a (D) after his name, so it's all good right?

This is what happens when you fool people and they find out about it, they attempt to cancel out the liberties you've taken with their ill-gotten support. Pretty straight forward really...

If they were as spineless as the right wants everyone to believe, they wouldn't be doing anything about it now would they?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
So are the Democrats changing their minds or just going back on their word?

Democrats are apparently allowed to change their minds on just about anything... ever... as often as they'd like... even if it's the exact opposite of what they promised their voters before they got elected.

In that way, and only that way, the Democrats remind me of my wife!

Are you implying that our politicians should not recognize when they have made a mistake and instead trudge endlessly into a bottomless pit of loss lives and money? That's what it sounds like, and that's really dumb. Who cares if its for political reasons or not? (although it probably is) it's the right thing to do.

The real problem with the AUMF is not even Iraq anymore. The AUMF is being used by Bush to assault our constitution. That's what he based his warrantless wiretapping on, that's what he bases all his civil rights destroying terrorism bull$hit on. Defending our constitution is more then enough reason to repeal the AUMF. The constitution is way more important then anything going on in Iraq.