0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:43 pm
A very naive assessment--members of Congress never consult their own beliefs, only their self-percieved re-election prospects . . .
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:46 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."

Saddam was in no position to take terrorist action against the United States or anybody else.

The Bushco administration before the preemptive attack made it sound like Saddam had all the means to attack the US, but we know today all that is false.


It appears the US Congress, at the time of the adoption of this Joint Resolution, did not agree with you.


But doesn't the Congress, and the Congress alone, have the right to declare war?

Why then didn't Congress declare war on Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:46 pm
Setanta wrote:
A very naive assessment--members of Congress never consult their own beliefs, only their self-percieved re-election prospects . . .


Sounds like your beef is with the Congress, not with my assessment of their action.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:47 pm
old europe wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."

A blank check.
Still, the United States never declared war on Iraq.

Yes! Congress declared "a blank check" be issued to the President.

No! It is not true that the United States never declared war on Iraq.

Congress delegated to the President Congress's authority to declare war against Iraq if specified conditions were met. Those conditions were met. Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to do that.

When the President, prior to March 20, 2003, announced to the Congress the pending invasion of Iraq, and Congress did not withraw their delegation of this authority, that then constituted a lawful declaration of war against Iraq by the United States.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:50 pm
old europe wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
#22 is the key: "...to take action to deter and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States..."

Saddam was in no position to take terrorist action against the United States or anybody else.

The Bushco administration before the preemptive attack made it sound like Saddam had all the means to attack the US, but we know today all that is false.


It appears the US Congress, at the time of the adoption of this Joint Resolution, did not agree with you.


But doesn't the Congress, and the Congress alone, have the right to declare war?

Why then didn't Congress declare war on Iraq?


Congress authorized US military action against Iraq. If you want to know why they didn't make a formal declaration of war, ask them.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
No! It is not true that the United States never declared war on Iraq.

Congress delegated to the President Congress's authority to declare war against Iraq if specified conditions were met. Those conditions were met. Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to do that.



The Constitution says that Congress can delegate the right to declare war to the President?

Well, you know, ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Congress authorized US military action against Iraq. If you want to know why they didn't make a formal declaration of war, ask them.


So you're saying that you haven't got a clue why the US didn't declare war on Iraq?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 04:59 pm
Silly, Tico . . . i have no beef--this has been a very entertaining day in the land of the dancing electrons . . .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 05:26 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If the US really wants to deter terrorism against the US, Bushco doesn't have to look far. North Korea, Iran, Syria, and China are all capable of inflecting great harm to the US and our allies.

We shall see sooner or later, one way or the other, whether those other countries intend to inflict harm on the USA. However, Saddam was so capable by virtue of his over a year harboring a growing al Qaeda training camps in northeastern Iraq and not responding to our requests to extradite their leadership.

I allege that Iraq threat based on the following:

In their 1996, and 1998 fatwahs, http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm [scroll down to find them both], and in their 2004 fatwah, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00035.html
al Qaeda declared war against all Americans and all worldwide non-believers in al Qaeda’s religion.


In its 1996 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, is double than their rewards in fighting some one else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner.


In its 1998 fatwah al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
~when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: "I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped", Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

~to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.


In its 2004 fatwah, al Qaeda stated:
Quote:
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.

Everything related to them such as complexes, bases, means of transportation, especially Western and American Airlines, will be our main and direct targets in our forthcoming operations on our path of Jihad that we, with Allah's Power, will not turn away from.


Saddam's regime, while lacking government civil control of northeastern Iraq in the autonomous region, was not lacking military ground control.

Quote:
From Encyclopedia Britannica, IRAQ
www.britannica.com
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control— particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk— that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.


Soon after the USA invaded Iraq, USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq.

Quote:
"American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks.
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.


When the USA military forces attacked the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists in northeastern Iraq, their leaders escaped.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
When the US invaded, it attacked AI [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] training camps in the north, and the organization's leaders retreated to neighboring countries. When the war in the north settled down, the militants returned to Iraq to fight against the occupying American forces.


By the time of the invasion of Iraq, Ansar al-Islam had grown significantly.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam (i.e., Supporters or Partisans of Islam) is a Kurdish Sunni Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war. At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.

AI [I.E., Ansar al-Islam] is believed to be responsible for several suicide bomb attacks in Iraq, mostly in the north. The first such was at a checkpoint on February 26, 2003, before the war [March 20, 2003].


Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001, 1 year 3 months prior to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
It [i.e., Ansar al-Islam] was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar. Krekar is alleged to be the leader of Ansar al-Islam. He has lived in Norway, where he has refugee status, since 1991. On March 21, 2003 his arrest was ordered by Økokrim, a Norwegian law enforcement agency, to ensure he did not leave the country while accusations that he had threatened terrorist attacks were investigated.


Mullah Krekar was an absentee a leader of Ansar al-Islam in in 2001, since he has lived in Norway, where he had refugee status, since 1991.

In the 5 years 5 months from May 1996 to October 2001 (when the USA invaded Afghanistan), al Qaeda in Afghanistan trained 10,000 or more terrorist fighters: an average of about 1,846 per year. In the 1 year 3 months from December 2001 to March 2003 (when the USA invaded Iraq), I estimate probably 1,000 or more terrorist fighters were trained by al Qaeda in Iraq. As of now, far fewer than 11,000 such fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq. Until these 11,000 have been killed or captured, one cannot rationally claim that our invasion of Iraq increased the total number of al Qaeda trained terrorists.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 67, note 78.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
The Taliban seemed to open the doors to all who wanted to come to Afghanistan to train in the camps. The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes. While Bin Ladin maintained his own al Qaeda guesthouses and camps for vetting and training recruits, he also provided support to and benefited from the broad infrastructure of such facilities in Afghanistan made available to the global network of Islamist movements. U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.78


Al Qaeda in1996 is not pacified by USA withdrawals. In fact in 1996 (more than 5 years before 9/11 and almost 7 years before the USA invaded Iraq) al Qaeda ridiculed such withdrawals.

Quote:
From al Qaeda’s 1996 fatwah
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm [scroll down to find it].
Few days ago the news agencies had reported that the Defence Secretary of the Crusading Americans had said that "the explosion at Riyadh and Al-Khobar had taught him one lesson: that is not to withdraw when attacked by coward terrorists".

We say to the Defence Secretary that his talk can induce a grieving mother to laughter! and shows the fears that had enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in less than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.


Osama's deputy Turabi had ties to Iraq and through him provided Osama a connection to Iraq. Osama helped form Ansar al-Islam.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.4, page 61, note 54".
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Bin Laden's Sudanese deputy] reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54


Osama’s deputy Zawahiri had ties to Iraq and through him also provided Osama a connection to Iraq.

Quote:
The non-partisan 9/11 Commission Report in Chapter 2.5, page 66, note 75.
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.


More than once, the USA requested Saddam to extradite the leadership of Ansar al-Islam, but Saddam ignored those requests

Quote:
Secretary of State, Colin Powell's speech to UN, 2/5/2003, on sinister nexus.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


While Saddam's regime denied Powell's claims that the regime was an accomplice to 9/11 or possessed ready-to-use WMD, Saddam's regime never confirmed or denied the USA requested the Saddam regime extradite the terrorist leadership in Iraq. Instead the Saddam regime ignored these requests.

Saddam was planning to re-commence development of WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted.

Quote:
Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Regime Strategic Intent
Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.

Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Bagdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of the sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

Iran was the pre-eminate motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerattions, but secondary.

Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of feeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 05:31 pm
Was war ever declared on Vietnam ..... we don't need any stinkin rules
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 05:55 pm
old europe wrote:
...
The Constitution says that Congress can delegate the right to declare war to the President?

Well, you know, ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.


CORRECTION OF MY ALLEGATION: The Constitution IMPLIES that Congress can delegate to the President the right to declare war.

So here's MY EVIDENCE in support of my allegation. Subsequent, emphasis is added by me.

Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
...
Article I
...
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
...
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States
...
Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America
...
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
...
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient
...
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 06:00 pm
It should be renamed to Awreck.

Three years on and there's no evidence of the wealthy, free democracy that the shrub promised. It will be the same three years from now. I don't believe that it's ever going to happen, but one thing I'm sure of. There is not a chance with that incompetent chimp faced halfwit running things.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 06:09 pm
Wilso wrote:
It should be renamed to Awreck.

Three years on and there's no evidence of the wealthy, free democracy that the shrub promised. It will be the same three years from now. I don't believe that it's ever going to happen, but one thing I'm sure of. There is not a chance with that incompetent chimp faced halfwit running things.

The USA invaded Iraq March 20, 2003.

Today is November 28, 2005.

Three years after our invasion of Iraq is March 20, 2006.

Already there is evidence of an independent secured democratic Iraq.

The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed four of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.

(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.
(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 07:09 pm
"Already there is evidence of an independent secured democratic Iraq."

What a guy! He knows how to read, but fails at interpretation of what is happening in Iraq.

"Independent secured Iraq" is just about as blow-headed an opinion as it can get.

Every expert on Iraq fear the early withdrawal of US troops, because of the great fear that the different tribes will fall into a civil war.

Because the Bushco administration never understood the history of Iraq before this unwise, preemptive war, they can offer no exit strategy.

In other words, we are stuck there to lose more of our military men and women, and over five billion every month, because of the stupidity of this administrion.

No matter how many times you repeat "Independent secured Iraq," it won't fly except in your tarnished brain that lacks honesty.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 07:19 pm
Quote:
Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

[...]

'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.'

He said that immediate action was needed to dismantle militias that continue to operate with impunity. If nothing is done, 'the disease infecting [the Ministry of the Interior] will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government', he said.

In a chilling warning to the West over the danger of leaving behind a disintegrating Iraq, Allawi added: 'Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the US will be safe.'

[...]

He added that he now had so little faith in the rule of law that he had instructed his own bodyguards to fire on any police car that attempted to approach his headquarters without prior notice, following the implication of police units in many of the abuses.

Allawi saved his strongest condemnation for the Ministry of the Interior, whose personnel have been accused of being behind much of the abuse: 'The Ministry of the Interior is at the heart of the matter. I am not blaming the minister [Bayan Jabr] himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place.'



Yep, that's what Allawi said two days ago. Evidence of an independent secured democratic Iraq? I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 07:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"Already there is evidence of an independent secured democratic Iraq."

You're right!

That statement of mine is wrong as written. It mis-states my actual meaning. I should have written:

Already there is evidence of a DEVELOPING -- ALBEIT SLOWLY DEVELOPING -- independent secured democratic Iraq.

Let's see what that trend looks like January 1, 2006 ........ and March 20, 2006.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 11:08 pm
Old Europe apparently knows NOTHING about the Congress's right to delegate to the president.

According to "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward P. 351--

"...on October 10th and 11th( 2001) the House and the Senate overwhelmingly voted to GRANT THE PRESIDENT FULL AUTHORITY TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY. The vote in the House was 296 to 133, and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and approprate" to defend against the threat of Iraq."
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 11:25 pm
Moretkat wrote:
Old Europe apparently knows NOTHING about the Congress's right to delegate to the president.


ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2005 11:31 pm
Are you so bereft of ability, Old Europe, that you must post meaningless statements.

I made a statement concerning the US House and Senate granting President Bush the authority to go to war.

You did not offer evidence that my post was erroneous or misleading.

Therefore, it stands!!!!!!!!!! That means, you lost!!!!
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2005 02:08 am
ican711nm wrote:
Wilso wrote:
It should be renamed to Awreck.

Three years on and there's no evidence of the wealthy, free democracy that the shrub promised. It will be the same three years from now. I don't believe that it's ever going to happen, but one thing I'm sure of. There is not a chance with that incompetent chimp faced halfwit running things.

The USA invaded Iraq March 20, 2003.

Today is November 28, 2005.

Three years after our invasion of Iraq is March 20, 2006.

Already there is evidence of an independent secured democratic Iraq.

The Bush administration's solution is the seven-step course they specified in 2003. It is the course they have stayed and are staying and have repeatedly declared they will stay. Their solution is to establish a democracy in Iraq secured by the Iraqis themselves. They have completed four of the seven steps in their solution:
(1) Select an initial Iraq government to hold a first election.
(2) Establish and begin training an Iraq self-defense military.
(3) Hold a democratic election of an interim government whose primary function is to write a proposed constitution for a new Iraq democratic government.
(4) Submit that proposed constitution to Iraq voters for approval or disapproval.

(5) After approval by Iraq voters of an Iraq democratic government constitution, hold under that constitution a first election of the members of that government.
(6) Help train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
(7) Remove our military from Iraq in a phased withdrawal.



Whatever you're on, I want some. You're so disconnected from reality you may as well live on a different planet. Or maybe the daily casualty reports from the endless terrorist bombings is actually from mars. Rolling Eyes
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 05/23/2025 at 05:38:57