Posts : 8802 Join date : 2012-06-23 Location : Pace
PACEDOG#1 wrote:Boards,
40 percent of the Dems in the HOR voted to go to war and a hell of a lot more inn the Senate did so as well.
The Iraq War Resolution gave President George W. Bush congressional approval “to use the Armed Forces of the United States” against Iraq. More specifically, President Bush was authorized to use military force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
When the Senate passed the resolution – at 12:50 a.m. on October 11, 2002 – it was less than 12 hours after the House did (at 3:05 p.m. on October 10). Despite the gravity of the actions that the resolution authorized the president to take (i.e. invade a sovereign nation, unilaterally, if necessary), Congress couldn’t seem to get the bill approved fast enough.
The entire world was on board as well with the UN authorizing force against Iraq.
As further evidence of Congress’s strong agreement with the resolution, it passed both houses with wide margins: 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate. - See more at: http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/legal-research/today-2002-congress-approves-iraq-war-resolution/#sthash.gRuz3kp1.dpuf
To blame it al on neocons means that your party leaders were weak. Is that your stance now? We're the Dems not having enough balls to stand up to Bush and say, "Hell no!" Is that what you are portraying here in front of this entire forum? Hmmm.
Yessirreesir: It sure was a great fuckin' war, which, according to you and Herr Markle we won.
Except for the thousands of survivors of dead American troops wasted in this un-winnable, useless, costly and unnecessary war, and for all of us who watched our economy slide and still have to pay for this insane folly, you Iraqi war supporters have plenty of nothing to gloat about.
Once again America decided to go into a foreign country, rip it apart and forcefully rebuild it into a successful democracy. And once again we failed militarily, diplomatically, and strategically.
By the time we pulled out with our tails between our legs, the only thing the Sunnis and Shias hated more than each other was us.
Pacedog, I've no doubt you gave your best. But that doesn't change the fact that once again America is the loser in this fiasco.
Posts : 22918 Join date : 2012-06-13 Location : Armpit of Florida
Why the U.S. will now be forced to get back into the War in Iraq. Iraq produced 3.3 million barrels of oil a day in May, making it the second-largest producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia.
Bob wrote:Why the U.S. will now be forced to get back into the War in Iraq. Iraq produced 3.3 million barrels of oil a day in May, making it the second-largest producer in OPEC after Saudi Arabia.
Proof of lies by George W Bush in National Geographic interview on 9/11
(2011)
"Tonight, as we approach the 10th anniversary of September 11th, the National Geographic Channel will air a new documentary titled “George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview.” In the two minute promo clip that was released, Bush lies multiple times about the events that took place on that fateful day. This article will expose the lies and show that Bush has changed his story repeatedly. We also provide evidence that Bush intended to invade Iraq from the first day of his Presidency.
Here’s the promo clip:
The following is a partial transcript of the clip along with some comments in brackets:
“September 11 is a monumental day in our nation’s history – a significant day. It changed my presidency.” [The words “monumental” and “significant” seem like odd choices. Why didn’t Bush use a word like “tragic” to describe September 11?]
“I went from a president who was primarily focused on domestic issues to a wartime president – something I never anticipated, nor something I ever wanted to be.” [This is a lie. Bush was focused on taking out Saddam Hussein from day 1 of his presidency according to Paul O’Neill (Bush’s first Treasury Secretary) and 4-Star General Wesley Clark. Read more below.]
“I had been notified that a plane had hit the world trade center.” [This contradicts statements made by Bush on two occasions that that he SAW the first plane hit on a TV set at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, while waiting to enter the classroom (which was impossible because there was no available footage at the time). Read more below.]
“At first I thought that it was a light aircraft. And, my reaction was, man, either the weather was bad or something extraordinary happened to the pilot.” [This is not consistent with previous statements made by Bush. He made no mention of a light aircraft when he said that he saw the first plane hit on TV. After all, if he had seen it happen, he would have known that it was not a light aircraft. Nor was there mention of bad weather as a possible cause. He did, however, mention pilot error each time. Read more below.]
“I then informed some of my staff members to provide help to New York City – whatever help they needed to take care of this incident and then walked into the classroom.” [Bush has now provided at least three, vastly different versions of his initial actions after finding out about the first plane hitting the WTC. Read more below.]
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.
Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”
O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”
Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”
Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”
Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”
Suskind: “No”
Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”
Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”
Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”
Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’”
O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”
O’Neill: “It did.”
Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)
Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.’” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)
Stahl: “Nation Building?”
Suskind: “Absolutely.”
Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”
Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.
Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”
Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)
Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”
Posts : 17531 Join date : 2012-06-16 Age : 79 Location : Tallahassee
2seaoat wrote:It matters not a flip how it was started. General Petraeus WON the war and then President Barack Hussein Obama took over and has lost everything that was gained and, in fact, has made matters far worse.
This is pure joy.....please explain how you win the Iraq war?
"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." - Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
Posts : 4510 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 78 Location : Gulfport/New Orleans
Richard Engel is reporting from the Kurdish area of Iraq that all American contractors and security personnel are being advised to leave the country. He is only wondering at this point if the civil war will be short or long.
Kurds are expanding their territory in the north, Current government trying to defend Baghdad and radical groups pouring in from the west.
For those not familiar with Engel:
Richard Engel (born September 16, 1973) is an American journalist and author who is NBC News's chief foreign correspondent.[1] He was assigned to that position on April 18, 2008 after being the network's Middle East correspondent and Beirut Bureau chief. Engel was the first broadcast journalist recipient of the Medill Medal for Courage in Journalism for his report "War Zone Diary".[2]
Prior to joining NBC News in May 2003, he covered the start of the 2003 war in Iraq from Baghdad for ABC News as a freelance journalist. He speaks and reads Arabic fluently and is also fluent in Italian and Spanish. Engel wrote the book A Fist in the Hornet's Nest, published in 2004, about his experience covering the Iraq War from Baghdad. His newest book, War Journal: My Five Years in Iraq, published in June 2008, picks up where his last book left off.
Engel is known for having covered the Iraq War, the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war.[3]
One of the hopes I did have from obama's campaign promises was a better and more stable n.africa and m.e.
The situation is much worse by any rational measure.
Rational measure? If your rational manner is a strong Syria, a strong Libya, a strong Egypt, a strong Iraq, and a strong Iran, would that be a good thing for America and their ally Israel? If somebody would have said ten years ago that these countries were neither strong or stable, they would have laughed at that person that the goal to destabalize those folks were behind state sponsored terrorism was not a rational goal for a policy.....do you think most of what has happened is by accident?
Posts : 4510 Join date : 2010-01-02 Age : 78 Location : Gulfport/New Orleans
Richard Engel brings up a good point. At this time it is not clear "which" Iraq we might want to support. The country is breaking up into three distinct areas each controlled by different groups. The country is falling apart. It is Humpty Dumpty time in Iraq.
Posts : 11865 Join date : 2012-06-14 Age : 72 Location : Pensacola, FL
othershoe1030 wrote:Richard Engel brings up a good point. At this time it is not clear "which" Iraq we might want to support. The country is breaking up into three distinct areas each controlled by different groups. The country is falling apart. It is Humpty Dumpty time in Iraq.
This outcome was predicted by 2004, should the Americans ever withdraw troops.
One only wishes a sane person had been with that Neocon group, The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), when they were writing-up their vision of conquest. Said person could have brought realism into their plans--then again, if someone besides Bush had run on the Republican side in 2000, they wouldn't have had a stooge who could easily be swayed to their point of view. You have to blame Dick Cheney, as he got the door cracked open and then invited all of his PNAC friends to join the government after Bush was elected. After that, they had access to billions of borrowed dollars and the whole U.S. military at their disposal. Chumps!
Last edited by ZVUGKTUBM on 6/12/2014, 11:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posts : 17531 Join date : 2012-06-16 Age : 79 Location : Tallahassee
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Here's the thing you can probably make a better case for, bds.
If Gore had been the President and not Bush, it's not likely we would have had an invasion and occupation of Iraq. And Saddam would have stayed in power. And yesterday Al Qaeda would not have taken control of the 2nd largest city in Iraq and be on the way to taking control of Baghdad. And Iraq would not now be allied with Iran. And 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars of America's resources wouldn't have been wasted.
I agree with all of that and I would also go further and say that Gore would not have cut taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003; so in the absence of a Bush presidency...in the absence of tax cuts...in the absence of a war in Iraq...we also likely wouldn't have the debt/deficit problems that we have today. After all, we had a surplus before all of the above, didn't we?
You do realize that a budget is a piece of paper. The deficit is the difference between income and expenses for the period of the budget. In our case, one year. We have not had a surplus in decades.
The cut in taxes rescued our economy but you know all that and have nothing, whatsoever to do but desperately try to change the topic from all the massive failures and scandals of this administration.
othershoe1030 wrote:Richard Engel brings up a good point. At this time it is not clear "which" Iraq we might want to support. The country is breaking up into three distinct areas each controlled by different groups. The country is falling apart. It is Humpty Dumpty time in Iraq.
Posts : 8802 Join date : 2012-06-23 Location : Pace
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Here's the thing you can probably make a better case for, bds.
If Gore had been the President and not Bush, it's not likely we would have had an invasion and occupation of Iraq. And Saddam would have stayed in power. And yesterday Al Qaeda would not have taken control of the 2nd largest city in Iraq and be on the way to taking control of Baghdad. And Iraq would not now be allied with Iran. And 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars of America's resources wouldn't have been wasted.
I agree with all of that and I would also go further and say that Gore would not have cut taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003; so in the absence of a Bush presidency...in the absence of tax cuts...in the absence of a war in Iraq...we also likely wouldn't have the debt/deficit problems that we have today. After all, we had a surplus before all of the above, didn't we?
You do realize that a budget is a piece of paper. The deficit is the difference between income and expenses for the period of the budget. In our case, one year. We have not had a surplus in decades.
The cut in taxes rescued our economy but you know all that and have nothing, whatsoever to do but desperately try to change the topic from all the massive failures and scandals of this administration.
"The cut in taxes rescued our economy," Herr Markle claims.
"We won the war in Iraq," same source.
And, by the way, the subject wasn't the failures or scandals of this administration -- oh no Herr Markle, the subject is: What did we get for all we spent in money and blood for our warfighting in Iraq?
Posts : 22918 Join date : 2012-06-13 Location : Armpit of Florida
I was just listening to the news on the radio. The newsman said, and I'm quoting... "the government of Iraq has now given it's permission for the U.S. to do airstrikes on the insurgents"
So the corrupt pro-Iranian Iraqi regime that dumbass yahoo on the cover of Time put in power has now given our country permission to blow people up so it can remain in power. Oh and our country will do it don't you worry. And when it does, that will create about a thousand more Sheik Mohammeds and Ayman al Zawahiris who want to do acts of terror against the U.S. The protection of that goddamn oil is a never ending saga.
Posts : 22918 Join date : 2012-06-13 Location : Armpit of Florida
I tell you one thing. Once we send the military back into Iraq and wipe out all those ragheads moving toward Baghdad, anybody would have to be a damn fool to want to work in that new "Freedom Tower". I wouldn't want to be within a mile of the place. Because if our country stops them from taking over that shithole, they're really going to want to slaughter Americans. And the more creative ones are gonna start hatching terror plots left and right against us.
All I can say is thank god those ragheads have never heard of Pensacola.
Posts : 17531 Join date : 2012-06-16 Age : 79 Location : Tallahassee
Wordslinger wrote:
Markle wrote:
boards of FL wrote:
Bob wrote:Here's the thing you can probably make a better case for, bds.
If Gore had been the President and not Bush, it's not likely we would have had an invasion and occupation of Iraq. And Saddam would have stayed in power. And yesterday Al Qaeda would not have taken control of the 2nd largest city in Iraq and be on the way to taking control of Baghdad. And Iraq would not now be allied with Iran. And 4000 American lives and a trillion dollars of America's resources wouldn't have been wasted.
I agree with all of that and I would also go further and say that Gore would not have cut taxes in 2001, 2002, and 2003; so in the absence of a Bush presidency...in the absence of tax cuts...in the absence of a war in Iraq...we also likely wouldn't have the debt/deficit problems that we have today. After all, we had a surplus before all of the above, didn't we?
You do realize that a budget is a piece of paper. The deficit is the difference between income and expenses for the period of the budget. In our case, one year. We have not had a surplus in decades.
The cut in taxes rescued our economy but you know all that and have nothing, whatsoever to do but desperately try to change the topic from all the massive failures and scandals of this administration.
"The cut in taxes rescued our economy," Herr Markle claims.
"We won the war in Iraq," same source.
And, by the way, the subject wasn't the failures or scandals of this administration -- oh no Herr Markle, the subject is: What did we get for all we spent in money and blood for our warfighting in Iraq?
Reality!
"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said. - Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003 "Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." - Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010
How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going? How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President? Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities. Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is45Jwqizc
And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….
Home
never changes.
