Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

And, though it has been posted ad nauseum, here again is the .... AUMF

... which passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, and was signed into law by Bush on October 16, 2002.

Some of you might want to read it for the first time.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, I apologize for saying that you are a loser. I don't apologize to Taco, who, when I first joined a2k, went after me personally and unfairly.

This newly-discovered unfounded but deep-seated hatred of yours toward me might go quite a ways toward explaining your prior comment in this thread:

Earlier in this thread, Advocate wrote:

Tico recently said that he wasn't a lawyer. He said that he was in middle management. Is that a flip-flop?

LINK

... which was wholly invented by your tiny little mind.

0 Replies

Just one of many quotes from the text, Tico:
And thanks for posting it again by the way.

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;

If they thought this was a lie, how come they voted for it? And of course this was all determined as a result of what the intelligence agencies were saying, including the CIA that as I recall some Democrats did not think was necessary anymore "after the Cold War was over."

Need we remind everyone again the above quote does not materially differ from the theme of Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and numerous other Democrats before Bush even arrived in Washington.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You deserve your opinion if you were against it from day -75, cyclops. Just in case you haven't heard, your frontrunner, Hillary, voted for it, and in case you haven't also heard, she talked to all of the experts, to include those people not influenced by Bush and those people that were informed on the subject of Iraq and WMD and all the other factors, and she voted for the war. Why do these simple facts of history seem to be conveniently forgotten?

Now, the primary reason for your opposition to Bush is totally forgotten when you plan to vote for Hillary in 08. She not only voted for the war, but now unlike Bush, has turned tail and hides in cowardice from her past statements and runs for the tall grass. Pathetic, people, pathetic, and you know it. All of you need to look in the mirror.

P. S. If we happen to win this war, how will you feel about it then? You can guess what Hillary will be saying. She will be taking full credit for winning. It was all because of her. Your guys are so transparently phony, it is pathetic.

To begin with, I have zero confidence that we will 'win' the war. In fact, I would be willing to bet that we won't. My position on this has remained unchanged since day -75. I can remember having conversations with my friends at the time about the nature of Sunni-Shia relations, and bemoaning the fact that the Bush crew didn't even f*cking mention it once in the run-up to war. We knew that it was going to be a disaster in the long run, and it is a disaster.

So I put zero credence whatsoever in your last line. I'm not worried about it in the slightest.

I'd like to see your information showing that this:

Quote:

and in case you haven't also heard, she talked to all of the experts, to include those people not influenced by Bush and those people that were informed on the subject of Iraq and WMD and all the other factors, and she voted for the war. Why do these simple facts of history seem to be conveniently forgotten?

... is in fact true. Who were the people 'not influenced by Bush' who she talked to?

But, it doesn't matter. She voted for it, which I would not have done. The majority of Democrats did not. I feel she should repudiate her vote and admit that she made a mistake, and you know that it's a mark against her that she won't do so with many of my ideological friends.

This isn't to say that ' the primary reason for your opposition to Bush is totally forgotten'; my primary reason for opposition to Bush isn't the Iraq war, it's the fact that the man is a moron. My secondary reason is the fact that he decided it wasn't important to catch Osama Bin laden, and wanted to play at nation-building instead. He's led us all down a dark path. There's no corollary between him and Hillary in this respect.

I've never once seen any indication that Hillary or any other Dem will be taking 'full credit' on themselves if we, what was it? "win the war." I would like to know where you got this information from, that Hillary and other Dems plan on doing this - not that I'm especially worried about it happening, mind you. Our time in Iraq is short and will be ending soon.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... I'm not worried about it in the slightest.

Doesn't that say alot, cyclops, that you are not "worried" about us being successful in Iraq, as if that would spell disaster for you? Hmmm....not that I ever knew you guys to think any differently.

As far as Hillary talking to people about Iraq to get the best information, I've heard her quoted on this so I know it to be true, and it is part of the record, but I don't feel like doing all of the history for you, as you were supposedly following all of this and should know this. Besides, the resolution or authorization says everything that we need to know that they voted for. It is all in black and white.

Quote:

I've never once seen any indication that Hillary or any other Dem will be taking 'full credit' on themselves if we, what was it? "win the war." I would like to know where you got this information from, that Hillary and other Dems plan on doing this - not that I'm especially worried about it happening, mind you. Our time in Iraq is short and will be ending soon.

Cycloptichorn

Of course they aren't going to say it now, but your politicians are transparently obvious. They govern by public opinion, not by right or wrong, or what they said in the past. They are very predictable, cyclops. Open your eyes and listen to what they say, and it should be transparently obvious.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
... I'm not worried about it in the slightest.

Doesn't that say alot, cyclops, that you are not "worried" about us being successful in Iraq, as if that would spell disaster for you? Hmmm....not that I ever knew you guys to think any differently.

As far as Hillary talking to people about Iraq to get the best information, I've heard her quoted on this so I know it to be true, and it is part of the record, but I don't feel like doing all of the history for you, as you were supposedly following all of this and should know this. Besides, the resolution or authorization says everything that we need to know that they voted for. It is all in black and white.

Quote:
I've never once seen any indication that Hillary or any other Dem will be taking 'full credit' on themselves if we, what was it? "win the war." I would like to know where you got this information from, that Hillary and other Dems plan on doing this - not that I'm especially worried about it happening, mind you. Our time in Iraq is short and will be ending soon.

Cycloptichorn

Of course they aren't going to say it now, but your politicians are transparently obvious. They govern by public opinion, not by right or wrong, or what they said in the past. They are very predictable, cyclops. Open your eyes and listen to what they say, and it should be transparently obvious.

This entire post is nothing but one big assertion mixed with a refusal to provide specific evidence for your claims. You really should be embarassed by it.

Are you having discussions with me because you actually want to discuss things, or because you are looking for any opportunity to beat up on Democrats that you can get, Okie? Everything that I say, you say 'well, that just shows how transparently pathetic the Dem party is, yadda yadda.'

If you read closely, you would see that I'm not worried at all about Hillary or any other Dem taking credit for 'winning the war,' as you posited they would. I'm not worried about this because I am confident that we are on our way to losing in Iraq. I base this upon the years of strategic and tactical errors made by those running it, and a knowledge of the region which gives me the confidence to make claims about the political ramifications of our actions there. For you to twist this statement, and attempt to make me look like someone who is cheering on our loss in Iraq for political reasons, is low. Pretty low, Okie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, remember when Hussein was captured? Hillary was out there singing praises then, as if she should be considered at least part of the reason we accomplished that. I don't suppose you remember that either?

And read your own statement about being worried about us winning, cyclops. I will let you off the hook, but Freudian slips do happen. All of your comments are conveniently filed away in okie's memory.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, remember when Hussein was captured? Hillary was out there singing praises then, as if she should be considered at least part of the reason we accomplished that. I don't suppose you remember that either?

<snip>

okie's memory.

Quote:

Turning to Iraq, yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. Like many of you, I was glued to the television and the radio as I went about my daily business. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve.

Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (Transcript)

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And, though it has been posted ad nauseum, here again is the .... AUMF

... which passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, and was signed into law by Bush on October 16, 2002.

Some of you might want to read it for the first time.

LOL

Quote:

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

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

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

(b) 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.

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.

Thanks for posting the link, Tico. Where is the directive by Congress instructing the President to invade Iraq?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, remember when Hussein was captured? Hillary was out there singing praises then, as if she should be considered at least part of the reason we accomplished that. I don't suppose you remember that either?

Oh, I remember that part - her crowing about Hussein being captured. I think that this is a long distance from claiming credit for winning the war.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Much of the preamble of the resolution is false, and Bush, not congress, had the intell showing this. Further, the resolution requires that the president determine that an invasion is necessary to protect the nation' security. Bush knew full well that the nation would be secure absent an invasion.

But we can't impeach Bush. After all, he did not, as far as we know, receive a bj from an intern.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Thanks for posting the link, Tico. Where is the directive by Congress instructing the President to invade Iraq?

Where is the instruction by Congress that Bush may only invade Iraq as a last resort, Chrissee/Harper?

0 Replies

I am putting you back on "ignore" since you can't even respect fellow members.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

I am putting you back on "ignore" since you can't even respect fellow members.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

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.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Thanks for posting the link, Tico. Where is the directive by Congress instructing the President to invade Iraq?

Read part (a) carefully Roxxx. Bush was authorized to use the Armed Forces as he (that would be Bush) determines to be necessary. Do you seriously think that does not include invading Iraq?

Spin it any way you wish, but the bottom line is that Congress authorized Bush to invade if he thought that was the way to go. Hillary voted for it as did other democrats and most republicans. Anyone not happy with their congressional delagation for voting for it should have been out campaigning for that person's defeat the next time an election rolled around. And yet Hillary is still in office.

Oh well, I guess voting for the war is only bad if you were a republican.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

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.

Thanks for posting the link, Tico. Where is the directive by Congress instructing the President to invade Iraq?

Read part (a) carefully Roxxx. Bush was authorized to use the Armed Forces as he (that would be Bush) determines to be necessary. Do you seriously think that does not include invading Iraq?

Spin it any way you wish, but the bottom line is that Congress authorized Bush to invade if he thought that was the way to go. Hillary voted for it as did other democrats and most republicans. Anyone not happy with their congressional delagation for voting for it should have been out campaigning for that person's defeat the next time an election rolled around. And yet Hillary is still in office.

Oh well, I guess voting for the war is only bad if you were a republican.[/quote]

C'mon. It's bad if you were a Democrat as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Then how come Hillary is leading your party? After all, Iraq is the issue this whole campaign centers around.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Then how come Hillary is leading your party? After all, Iraq is the issue this whole campaign centers around.

There's an assertion if I ever saw one.

Three reasons:

First, she's got tons of Name Rec. People know who she is and she has a long political history.

Second, her Iraq war issues are the only thing that are keeping her from having an even bigger lead...

Third, Republican incompetence is the issue this campaign centers around. Iraq is merely one facet of an ugly gem.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie really doesn't understand anything, and I mean anything.

Bush and the GOP members of congress are keeping us in Iraq; that's current info.

Bush took us into Iraq on false information: Saddam's WMDs. That's past fact.

Future: Voters are now looking to see who will be best for the US; it just so happens many Americans believe Hillary Clinton is the one to beat in November 2008. That's what the polls show.

0 Replies

Your Democrats in Congress have the power to end it. Just cut off funding. Whats the holdup?

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know