0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 09:35 am
Quote:
And you can be damn sure that if it was Clinton now waging the war in Iraq, the lefties and Democrats would be strongly defending the action and the GOP would be criticizing it. Such is the way it goes.


It most specifically is not. I opposed Clinton's missile strike into Iraq at the time and I oppose the Iraq war now.

Democrats are, to me, only slightly better than Republicans, after all; there's no reason either side should be held up for adulation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:01 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Given the facts we know now, it seems to be an excellent example of why Congress passed the Logan Act in the first place.

Simple issue. If there are legal grounds to suggest the Act may have been violated, the Justice Department will surely mount an investigation and lay charges as legally appropriate. Yes?


I would hope so. That's what I've been suggesting.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:02 am
McTag wrote:
Mortkat wrote:
Didn't get the approval of Congress is more relevant as is the attack on the WTC killing thousands of our citizens.

Repeat to yourself-ten times.

The US Congress authorized Bush to send troops to Iraq.

The US Congress authorized Bush to send troops to Iraq

The US Congress authorized Bush to send troops to Iraq


Afghanistan, you are thinking of.

Not Iraq.


October 16, 2002: Congress' Joint Resolution authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. (Public Law 107-243).

Quote:
JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

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

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. Union Calendar No. 451


LINK
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:30 am
Here's a link to a short clip of Democrats discussing before the war what a threat Saddam and Iraq was ..... LINK
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 11:53 am
America's worst nightmare:

Quote:
http://logo.cafepress.com/2/1205792.jpg
You heard right. 4 MORE years. Sure the law says you can only serve 2 terms. Repeal it! The country needs W in '08. Show your continued support for George W. Bush by wearing the shirt or placing the sticker over (or next to) your W '04 sticker. God Bless America.

More for our friends here :wink:
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 11:56 am
Thanks, Walter.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:03 pm
Always at your service.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:10 pm
Thanks Tico; it seems I was wrong about the Resolution of Congress.

It is surprising, reading that document, how often the United Nations Security Council is mentioned, and notably in the first item resolved, namely

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

In the light of the drafting of that document it would seem a pity, to put it no stronger than that, that the UN decision was not deemed a prerequisite to invasion.

Some would argue, and I do, that invasion without UN sanction is a crime.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 12:41 pm
McTag forgot that the Congress authorized President Bush to send troops to Iraq.

Now is he also forgetful about the UN "enforcement"?

I will remind him.

In Clinton's address to the nation in which he announced his pre-emtive missle strike against Baghdad, he gave many reasons for his order, most of which were that he feared that Saddam would use his WMD's and he was concerned for the peace of the world as long as Saddam was in power. Clinton urgently desired, he said, a new government in Iraq(I do not think just requesting that he leave would have made any difference).

But, Clinton also referenced the UN "enforcement". He said--quote--

"Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by OVERWHELMING MILITARY FORCE IN THE REGION. THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL VOTED 15 TO SERO TO CONDEMN SADDAM'S ACTIONS ADN TO D E M A N D THE HE I M M E D I A T E L Y COME INTO COMPLIANCE"

When Saddam FAILED TO COMPLY, WE PREPARED TO ACT MILITARILY. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It PLEDGED TO THE UN THAT IT HAD MADE, AND I QUOTE, A CLEAR AND UNCONDITIONAL DECISION TO RESUME C O O P E R A T I O N WITH THE WEAPONS INSPECTORS.

Now over the last three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation, The testing period ENDED THIS WEEKEND. THE CONCLUSIONS ON THE REPORTS TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL ANNAN ARE STARK, SOBERING AND PROFOUNDLY DISTURBING.


IN FOUR OUT OF FIVE CATEGORIES SET FORTH, IRAQ HAS FAILED TO COOPERATE. INDEED, IT ACTUALLY HAS PLACED N E W R E S T R I C T I O N S ON THE INSPECTORS.

So Iraq has abused its final chance( Who said this? Why Bill Clinton said that)


So we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to RETAIN( you don't retain something you do not already have) AND BEGIN TO REBUILD ITS CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS IN MONTHS, NOT YEARS.

Second, If Saddam can crippled( sic) the weapons inspection system adn get away with it, he would conclude that the international community--led by the United States had simply lost its will. He will surmize that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday-MAKE NO MISTAKE--HE WILL USE IT AGAIN AS HE HAS IN THE PAST."

END OF QUOTE.


I would point out to Mr. McTag that these are the words of Bill Clinton in 1998, not the words of Rumsfeld, Bush or Cheney.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:10 pm
If the US could make that case in UN council and get a resolution, then it might have been credible.
They did not, they could not, and war, the last resort in any situation, by any measure of civilisation should have been unthinkable.
Therefore, it is an illegal unilateral action- and it matters not to me, as I believe I may have mentioned before, whether it is made by a Dem or a Rep administration.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:15 pm
Leading article: President Bush is betraying the founding values of his nation

The bitter taste is left of an administration whose response is to deny first and concede later - only when found out
Published: 17 November 2005

Outlawed weapons and lies about them. Hidden prisons and torture chambers. Human beings in cages. Captives who "disappear". This was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, was it not, and the justification for war? Two and a half years after the invasion, to the eternal shame of the occupiers, it is increasingly the new Iraq as well.

We are observing what must be the worst week for the reputation of the joint United States and British adventure since the revelations of abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. Any hopes in Washington or London that the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds might yet be won have been thoroughly demolished.

("The Independent" leader today, q.v.- subscription only, so no link)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 05:45 pm
McTag wrote:
If the US could make that case in UN council and get a resolution, then it might have been credible.
They did not, they could not, and war, the last resort in any situation, by any measure of civilisation should have been unthinkable.
Therefore, it is an illegal unilateral action- and it matters not to me, as I believe I may have mentioned before, whether it is made by a Dem or a Rep administration.


That is at least a self-consistent position. Namely that any war or significant military action is illegal if it does not take place purtsuant to a Security Council resolutiuon explicitly calling for the action in question.

The problem is that this position goes well beyond both the normal practice of nations large and small and the provisions of the UN Charter. It is noteworthy that President Clinton did not have a Security Council resolution specifically authorizijng the actions he took following the above quoted statements. Rather he acted to enforce requirements on Iraq2i behavior enacted in a number of previuous Security Council resolutions -- just as did President Bush and PM Blair in 2003.

McTag ius certainly entitled to imagine that his illusions constitute international law. However that does not make it a fact.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 05:58 pm
McTag wrote:
If the US could make that case in UN council and get a resolution, then it might have been credible.
They did not, they could not, and war, the last resort in any situation, by any measure of civilisation should have been unthinkable.
Therefore, it is an illegal unilateral action- and it matters not to me, as I believe I may have mentioned before, whether it is made by a Dem or a Rep administration.


The US tried for weeks to get the UN to agree to a joint resolution to take care of Saddam and they were not denied but they were stalled, all the while giving Saddam plenty of time to 'tidy up' Iraq. The US withdrew their request for a UN resolution rather than have to go against the UN. The UN never officially condoned nor condemned the Coalition action.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:00 pm
Wow.

I just got in. Haven't read new thread titles yet--but



did you hear about Woodward?



<smirk>
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:12 pm
Tes. When the mother of all reporters blows the case for an intentional leak right out of the water, the media is in a state of apolexy trying to figure out how to handle this. Gosh, maybe some of them will screw up and actually start putting out some honest news. You gotta love it. Smile
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:20 pm
Brimming...

Libby skates and the underground network of media and Democrat backscratchers is OUT IN THE OPEN. BY NAME.

I really can't wait for this.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:53 pm
Interesting how one of the most "revered" journalists in US history is suddenly being criticised for his reporting skills, among other things.

Reading...

PS--Why is it a badge of homor for other journos to protect their sources, but not Woodward?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:54 pm
The dems love Woodward for destroying Nixon,now they hate him?

Interesting,isnt it?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:57 pm
Flip.....FLOP! In a matter of minutes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:58 pm
mysteryman wrote:
The dems love Woodward for destroying Nixon,now they hate him?

Interesting,isnt it?


They do? Who might you be referring to?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/01/2025 at 06:48:58