| Author |
Message |
    
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4961
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 1:38 pm: | 
|
Communist? What do economic systems have to do with any of this?
This "fully functioning" government lacks a couple of key posts. Unfortunately, in a country where security is the biggest problem, those key posts are for Interior, Defense, and National Security. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Poor Chris has been shamed by Straw. Oh no! What will he do now?
Chris, may I suggest you put your head in the sand, or rectum. How else will you not be a disappointment to those whose opinions REALLY matter? |
Straw Kennedy
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7251
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
boring (as usual) |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 2:40 pm: |
|
speaking of boring:
Straw spells "boring", "boring".  isn't that hilarious? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 958
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
. . .sorry, I am just too broken up to speak, right now. I have been dissed by the straw. He called me a COMMUNIST!
. . . then he said he was DISSAPOINTED!
This, from a guy who thinks all is well in Iraq. |
Straw Kennedy
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7252
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
No one ever said all is well in Iraq. Now, you lie. First you say you want another dictatorship in Iraq. Now you simply make up stories in order to defend the stupidity of your dictatorship comment.
If I were you I'd at least try and explain why it is you hope for another dictatorship in Iraq. You know, this despite Americans dying there. Why don't you just start calling our soldiers baby killers while you're at it.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4964
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
What in his post makes you think he wants a dictatorship? Let's play a round of my favorite game, Change The Metaphor. Chris writes,
Quote:What do we do now?
I really hate to say this, but maybe a dictatorship would be the best alternative. I cannot see another way of ending the insurgency or keeping the country together.
Let's pretend we're not talking about the political situation in Iraq, let's pretend we're talking about a bad case of flesh-eating bacteria.
Quote:What do we do now?
I really hate to say this, but maybe amputation would be the best alternative. I cannot see another way of ending the infection or keeping the patient alive.
Straw, in his simple-minded way, would say "Oh, you want to amputate his leg!", as though that were something we'd been eagerly hoping for all along.
No, rather it's one bad choice among many, and maybe the one we'd have to live with. It doesn't mean that on principle you think there should be lots of amputations; and it doesn't mean that Chris is a fan of dictatorships. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 22, 2006 - 5:40 pm: |
|
What we could do or should do is debatable. What we will do is "cut and run" after declaring "victory". This could happen before the current administration leaves office (one way or another). Or the next President will do it, unless the truly unhinged John McCain is elected.
Cheers |
Straw Kennedy
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7256
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 7:09 am: |
|
Here's a story of hope and encouragement (yes the NY Times). Maybe the Chris Prenovost's of the world will take a second to read why Iraq and the Iraqi people still matter. These people do not deserve another dictatorship as Chris and other's have foolishly suggested.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/world/middleeast/23civil.html?hp&ex=1148443200 &en=3df6f45265a797eb&ei=5094&partner=homepage |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 959
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:08 am: |
|
Straw quoting the NYT?!?
What's next - Mother Jones?
-All kidding aside - That was a pretty good story. Shows how some people in Iraq are still trying to build a civil society, despite all the mayhem around them.
But the overall picture is not positive. Yes, the Iraqis finally agreed on a government, but it is weak. The security forces are corrupt and throughly infiltrated by various sectarian militias, and thus enjoy little public confidence.
You're not thrilled by my mentioning the possibility of a dictatorship? Neither am I, but we have to be realistic. Let's just say that Iraq needs a strong government, much stronger than the one it has now, to make things work. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:36 pm: |
|
case closed:
AT WAR
Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.
BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:
The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question [the Bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."
Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."
In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.
The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments. Earlier this year, Mr. Gore charged that "CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House . . . found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases." Sen. Kennedy charged that the administration "put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis."
This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Among the findings: "The committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so." Silberman-Robb concluded the same, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." What the report did find is that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "riddled with errors"; "most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policy makers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war."
Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat. Howard Dean declared Iraq "was not a danger to the United States." John Murtha asserted, "There was no threat to our national security." Max Cleland put it this way: "Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs." Yet while we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.
Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told the Senate: "I actually think this may be one of those cases where [Iraq under Saddam Hussein] was even more dangerous than we thought." His statement when issuing the ISG progress report said: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities" that were part of "deliberate concealment efforts" that should have been declared to the U.N. And, he concluded, "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, "the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution."
Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran and used mustard gas and nerve gas. A decade later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a massively destabilizing force in the Middle East; so long as Saddam was in power, rivers of blood were sure to follow.
Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization. "The president now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact," according to Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."
The following day the New York Times editorialized: "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. . . . The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."
These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.
Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.
|
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 390
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 8:56 pm: |
|
you are spot on as usual. as Wehner says, Saddam was even more dangerous than we thought. He didn't have WMD, he had "WMD-related program activities." and if we're not going to go to war to stop someone from engaging in WMD-related program activities, why do we even have a military?
you are right again SLK. case closed. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 12:07 am: |
|
The puppet government in Iraq is unlikely to be successful in the long term. At best, it will provide an excuse for U.S. withdrawal, after which the country will collapse into warring factions. Multinational business interests in Iraq will simply hire more mercenaries for protection.
Remember that only suckers die in Iraq. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 962
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
SLK: A few facts your writer chose to ignore:
The intelligence agencies told the adminstration what they wanted to hear, pressure or not. CIA director George Tenet told the President that the presence of WMD's in Iraq was a 'slam dunk'. Turns out to be completely false. And Tenet keeps his job?!? If Bush was serious about wanting to hear the truth, he would have fired Tenet on the spot. After the way this administration has treated it's internal critics, do you seriously think any intel employee is going to tell this President anything but what he wants to hear?
I read nothing in Mr. Wehner's story explaining the lies about Saddam being linked to 9/11. Bush consistently told us that Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot, which was a complete fabrication.
And what about General Shaliskavili? Remember him? The four-star general, chairman of the JCS, who warned Bush that the invasion would need at least a quarter million troops? That we should plan for widespread rioting after the fall of the baathist government? That we should make plans to secure the Iraqi army's arsenals? His advice was completely ignored by the draft-dodging coward occupying the white house. When the general went public with his doubts, he was fired.
Betcha that message was heard loud and clear throughout the government. Play along with Bush, or die.
Odd how the only defense of the administration's stunning ineptitude comes from the administration itself.
I follow the news rather carefully, and do not remember one single instance of Bush talking about democracy in Iraq. If your man was so determined to create a democracy there, he should have read a little history and done a little research.
Talking to Jesus is not a substitute for common sense.
Signed, one Very Angry Republican. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 2111
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 10:51 am: |
|
The U.N. weapons inspectors told the world that there wasn't any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq long before the war. But why would the U.S. listen to those stupid panty-wastes? What they heck did they know anyway. W used our army to prove them wrong. Didn't he? Yeah he did. Right on. Hoo-ya! |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 963
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
Montagnard: Your interpretation of these events is simply wrong. No business, multinational or otherwise, can operate during a civil war.
Multinationals want Peace, Easy Taxes, and the Tolerable Administration of Justice.
War is bad for business. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 924
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
War is bad for business.
Unless you happen to be a defense contractor. Luckily, there are none of those with ties to the White House! |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2940
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the ••••••••,’”
John McCain |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Peter Wehner is Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives, in other words he writes speeches and catapults the propaganda. I've got a question SLK. If you think there's any truth whatsoever in the tone of that article, what are you reading and watching and listening to, to think this preposterous piece of nonsense is the truth? Seriously, what in the hell does somebody like you read, besides the Journal Op-Ed page, which is a disgrace, in my humble opinion, especially when it's linked to an otherwise classic news source?
I saw that yesterday, and my reaction was what a load of unbridled horsesh*t. Your reaction, obviously, was different.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I don't have the time to do a point by point explication of why Wehner's article is total BS, but I can point to an example of the kind of dishonesty that it is based on. He actually calls the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report "bipartisan" when the report actually contains an appendix which is a harsh critique of the report by the Democratic members of the committee. It reads in part:
Quote:The central issue of how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports were relegated to the second phase of the Committee's investigation along with other issues related to the intelligence activities of Pentagon policy officials, pre-war intelligence assessments about post-war Iraq, and the role played by the Iraqi National Congress, led by Ahmad Chalabi, which claims to have passed `raw intelligence' and defector information directly to the Pentagon and the Office of Vice President.
As a result, the Committee's phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialse t/creports/pdf/s108-301/rockefeller.pdf
So how credible is someone who says that such a report was "bipartisan?" The committee was bipartisan in makeup, but obviously the report was not, when the appendix makes it clear that the report was written over the objections of the minority.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4979
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
And of course the promised phase two of the investigation has been stalled by the committee chairman. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 966
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Right. So much for Whener and his balderdash.
Back to the main issue - Assuming we want to keep Iraq a united country, what do we do now?
I really hope the democracy we have planted there takes. But how patient are we going to be? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Chris Prenovost said:
I read nothing in Mr. Wehner's story explaining the lies about Saddam being linked to 9/11. Bush consistently told us that Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot, which was a complete fabrication.
Oh really, I don't recall that. Cna you please provide proof of this?
Here is something on the subject from our wonderful friends at Factcheck.org:
It's a matter of record that Bush and Cheney repeatedly accused Saddam Hussein of aiding al Qaeda terrorists and providing them a base, but stopped short of accusing him of aiding the September 11 attacks specifically. What's less clear -- even to commissioners -- is whether the commission investigators meant to dismiss only the possibility that Saddam aided the 9/11 attacks, or meant to rebut the idea of any "collaborative relationship" with al Qaeda.
Here is the link to the entire article:
http://www.factcheck.org/article203.html
Chris-disagree or be angry about the war all you want, just don't make stuff up to fit your cause...
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5430
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Quote:Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
See, part of the authorization to invade Iraq, was that the President had to determine that the invasion was part of taking action against those involved with the September 11 attacks.
So, he made that claim in his letter to Congress. It was consistent with everything he had been saying.
To argue otherwise, is to get into one of those "what the meaning of 'is' is" discussions. |
Straw Kennedy
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7263
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4980
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Do you have a point?
I mean, other than the one on top of your head |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5431
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
I think Mr. Straw's point is, that the Senators who voted "Yes" in October of 2002, authorized the President to invade Iraq if the following took place -
Quote: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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
So, the "Yes" votes authorized an invasion if the President was able to declare that there could not be inspections, and declare that the invasion was part of "continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." The President asserted that those conditions were met, when he authorized the invasion in March of 2003.
In retrospect, it probably was not a sensible thing to give the President this unilateral right to invade, in light of the President's willingness to declare those things, with no real facts to back it up. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7265
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
I see that's the line the Democrats want you to believe. Does a free Bridge in Brooklyn come with their excuse? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5434
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2006 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Well, that was a really lame come-back.
Heck, I used documents posted by the White House, for goodness sake. Those are facts, dude.
If you believe anybody who denies those facts, maybe I can sell you a bridge.  |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 967
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
Unfortunately, Straw's correct. Those Democrats DID vote for the war, and are just as guilty as the administration.
Clinton and Schumer voted for the war without questions or any meaningful examination of the facts. They made a quick and cynical (surprise!) political calculation: The U.S. would win the war quickly, and no one would ask any embarassing questions after the fact. Unfortunately for them and a lot of other political whores, the Bushies were extraordinarily incompetent and screwed the pooch big time in the Iraqi occupation. So here we are.
Now, what? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4985
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
Not quite: Congress voted for the war if certain circumstances were met.
They weren't. Bush decided to invade anyway. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2127
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
it's a cop-out when Dems who voted for the war say that. everyone knew there was a 100% chance Bush was going to invade Iraq. to say now that you were holding out hope that diplomacy would work is disingenuous. Bush made it clear for a year before the invasion that he wasn't going to wait for diplomacy or inspections. So the Democrats who voted with Bush were either being cowardly or cynically calculating. If there's an afterlife, they'll have to answer for the blood on their hands, just as Bush will have to answer for his actions.
But it's also disingenous for Bush supporters to say the war was a bipartisan effort. About half of all the Democratic Senate and House members voted against the war resolution, while nearly all of the Republicans voted for it. But more importantly, no one who's being at all honest can say that the war was not completely driven by the Bush Administration, with congress just tagging along for the ride. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4987
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
If bush was going to war anyway, why would any congressional act make a difference? As I remember, this legislation was supposed to be a last-ditch effort to put up the appearance of some kind of restraint on the Administration, not the blank check that they'd have you believe it was. Obviously it failed, and is now being used to cudgel congress. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2128
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:36 pm: |
|
the vote was entirely political, for two reasons. One, so Bush could have a CYA. He could claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he wouldn't have invaded without it. The second was to force a vote on congressional Dems before the midterm election and force them to vote for it, or be slimed as in bed with al Qaeda if they voted against it.
rest assured, if by some strange set of circumstances the Republicans in congress didn't back the war, Bush would have gone ahead anyway, citing his authority as commander-in-chief.
again, for Dems to now say they really didn't think Bush was dead set on war strains credulity to the breaking point. I didn't believe he wasn't, and tom I'll bet at the time you didn't either. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4988
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:40 pm: |
|
I'm having a little trouble untangling the meaning in your double negative. Can you rephrase that last paragraph? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2129
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
it is simply incredible that Dems now say they didn't know for sure that Bush was going to invade Iraq. it was apparent to everyone that he wasn't going to give diplomacy or inspections a chance. I knew he was set on an invasion, and I'll bet at the time you did too.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4991
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Then there were only three choices: write the blank check; put some kind of impediment in the way; or do nothing. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2130
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 1:09 pm: |
|
sure, but it's now dishonest to for some Dems to say they didn't write the blank check when everyone knew that's what it was.
certainly, Bush and his cabal are 99% responsible for the cluster**** that is Iraq. but many Dems stood by and let it happen, and that's something they'll have to live with. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1088
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 6:42 pm: |
|
Yes Dr. and just watch them all get re-elected by anti-war libs voting for them. The left rants about politicians not having a conscious or soul and then they do the exact same thing those politicians did with their vote. I love this. How any anti-war lib could vote for any incumbent Democrat who voted "Yea" is beyong me, but everyone is a hypocrite at some point. I can point to election day 2006 as that day for many, many anti-war voters. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5443
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Well, I was just pointing out how the President had linked Iraq with September 11, as the justification for war.
I agree, the Senators and Congressmen (of both parties) who voted for that resolution bear responsibility for handing the President that blank check.
Some of them realized that, and were critical of the President's decision to tell the inspectors to get out, and to launch the invasion. Others were a little more mealy-mouthed about it.
As for who to support in 2006 and beyond - you have to look at who the candidates are. It would be silly to vote against a Democrat who was clearly wrong on the resolution in October, 2002, if the other candidate still insists that it was the right thing to do. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
nohero,
not quite. on the presidential letter post i mean.... |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5444
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:21 pm: |
|
What do you mean, "Not quite"? That's what the words say.
Hey, I report, you decide ... |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 9:23 pm: |
|
I am doing just that...not quite....going into iraq was PART of the much larger WOT so the wording make sense...
and I didn't even use "is" above... 
-SLK |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3242
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Um, "was" is the past tense of "is". So you kinda did. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 968
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:00 am: |
|
So what's the verdict?
Stay the course and hope for the best?
Get out?
Or something else? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
the plan is hopeful hope. and hopefully, that will be sufficient. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 969
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Great. . . . How long do we do that for? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5009
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Not long. We hope. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page