Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

That means "approved."

0 Replies

Quote:

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln, D-Arkansas, reads aloud the results of the Senate vote on the resolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Story Tools

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIDEO
CNN's Jamie McIntyre looks at the enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq by the U.S. and Turkey. (October 10)

PLAY VIDEO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN's Nic Robertson is allowed to tour an Iraqi heavy industry complex, thought to be a place where nuclear components are made (October 10)

PLAY VIDEO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Iraqis are skeptical about George W. Bush's claim that the U.S. is a friend to the Iraqi people. CNN's Jane Arraf reports (October 9)

PLAY VIDEO

RELATED
Roll Call: See how your senator voted
Interactive: Voices from the debate
Time.com: Should we attack Iraq?
Time.com: Iraq: Terror behind the lines?

SPECIAL REPORT

War Tracker
On the Scene Map
Commanders: U.S. | Iraq
Weapons: 3D Models
Coalition casualties | POW/MIA
Special Report

ON CNN TV
Watch SHOWDOWN: IRAQ anchored by CNN's Wolf Blitzer weekdays at noon (ET) for in-depth coverage of the conflict with the latest news and debate from around the world.

FACT BOX
"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 Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

Quote:

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq began on March 20, consisting primarily of United States and United Kingdom forces; 98% of the forces came from these two countries, although numerous other nations also participated. The 2003 Iraq invasion marked the beginning of what is commonly referred to as the Iraq War. Historically, it is properly referred to as the Third Persian Gulf War, recognizing the 8 year war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. Prior to the invasion, the United States claimed that Iraq illegally possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and had to be disarmed by force. [1] U.S. president George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that these weapons posed a grave and imminent threat to the United States and its allies. [2][3] UN inspection teams were searching Iraq for these alleged weapons prior to the invasion and were willing to continue, but were forced out by the onset of war in spite of their requests for more time. [4][5]. The US abandoned its failing efforts to get international endorsement for war against Iraq on March 17, 2003 and began the invasion on March 20, 2003. [6] The Iraqi Military was defeated, and Baghdad fell on April 9th, 2003. On May 1, 2003, U.S. President George W. Bush declared the end of major combat operations, terminating the Ba'ath Party's rule and removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from office. Coalition forces ultimately captured Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Careful inspections after Iraq's capitulation failed to find Weapons of Mass Destruction [7][8]. Post-invasion Iraq is plagued by violence caused from a mostly Sunni Muslim insurgency, and by terrorism of the Al-Qaeda militant network.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George is right. OE seemed to be indicating that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional approval, which is patently false.

It's also been conveniently forgotten by many that Clinton, too, attacked Iraq in mid-December of 1998 for the exact same reason. He just didn't have the stones to finish the job. Despite boldly proclaiming he wouldn't let Saddam have his way; he did exactly that, and left the mess for his successor to deal with.

He didn't have the approval of Congress to do it either. Smile

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

old europe wrote:
What I learned from Foxy about the President's powers in the United States:

The President cannot allocate money. Nevertheless, he can propose cuts. If he proposes cuts in money allocation, it is not his responsibility, however. It is the responsibility of Congress. And the responsibility of the state not protesting the cuts. And the responsibility of the state, because even when they would have gotten the money, they would have misused it.

Pretty much. The President can suggest cuts in the budget, but can not be held responsible in any way for those cuts when his suggestions are then actually OK'd. In Fox's world.

No, the President cannot be held responsible for budget cuts or budget increases. He can be held responsible for whatever leadership he exercises in effecting an agenda and especially for what he claims he did or did not do thereafter.

But of course in Nimh's world, President Bush is wrong because he did not put more importance on what Nimh thinks is important. The President actually considered that the people of SE Louisiana aren't the only Americans the President is supposed to be concerned about. Nimh also ignores all the arguments for why the allocation was probably what it was or that Louisana has been diverting Louisiana flood control monies to other purposes for decades.

If you read how much Nimh is obsessing over the SE Louisiana budget item, you might think Bush should have overseen the minting of the money, hand delivered it to the Louisiana authorities personally, and then pitched in with a shovel to shore up those levees.

0 Replies

Well tonight is Oscar's night, so Ann Coulter haters ignore this post. Ann Coulter fans, enjoy Laughing

SPEAKING TRUTH TO DEAD HORSES: MY OSCAR PREDICTIONS
By Ann Coulter
Wed Mar 1, 8:15 PM ET

This is my first annual Oscar predictions column, for which I am uniquely qualified by not having seen a single one of the movies nominated in any category. I've never even watched an Oscar ceremony, except once when a friend called me 35 minutes into Halle Berry's acceptance speech and I managed to catch only the last 20 minutes of it.

I shall grant my awards based on the same criteria Hollywood studio executives now use to green-light movies: political correctness. Also, judging by most of the nominees this year, the awards committee prefers movies that are wildly unpopular with audiences.
THE REST HERE

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
George is right. OE seemed to be indicating that Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq without congressional approval, which is patently false.
.

George is wrong. AND so are you, Congress NEVER APPROVED the invasion. They GRANTED AUTHORITY for Bush to go to war AS A LAST RESORT.

Your greasy grip on reality is showing. From your own source:

Quote:

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

As commander in chief he made a judgment call with the authority to do so granted by congress. On what planet does that not constitute approval? The language used could have required him to return prior to attacking to get approval. It did not.

Further, his reasoning mirrored his predecessor's (Bill Clinton) almost exactly.

While you may disagree with his judgment call that Saddam was not in full compliance, you were not the Commander in Chief, so it wasn't your call to make. It was Bush's; and he made it with overwhelming Congressional approval of his authority to do so.

Here's a little history to help you find some of the errors in your assumptions:

Bill Clinton wrote:

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

This is what Bill Clinton said just prior to turning the blind eye and allowing Saddam to do whatever he pleased for years without any UN inspections whatsoever. There's no doubt about what he thought the threat was, either.

Bill Clinton wrote:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

Bill Clinton wrote:

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Again, all this lip-service immediately preceded Clinton's utter and complete failure to address the gathering danger he so eloquently addressed.

I know it's fun, and convenient to pretend that Iraq was all about George and no one else thought Saddam was a threat... but it simply isn't true. Saddam was Bush's problem because Clinton utterly and completely failed live up to his responsibility to follow through on his threats. This after boldly, accurately pronouncing:

Bill Clinton wrote:

If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed.

The not so funny thing is; turn our backs is EXACTLY what he did next. Saddam had every reason to believe we were crying wolf, EXACTLY as Bill Predicted he could. His predictions of what would happen if (right before he did) we let Saddam run amuck were:

Bill Clinton wrote:

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Does the bolded portion sound familiar? Idea

Bill Clinton wrote:

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise 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.

Clearly, he understood then; the danger of allowing Saddam go unchecked. But he let it happen anyway and that's what Bush entered the Oval Office knowing.

Bill Clinton wrote:

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Clearly, Clinton had no doubt and there can be little doubt what he thought the International consensus was either. This is in 1998. Interestingly; we are now asked to believe that after years of no UN oversight whatsoever; Saddam's WMD mysteriously vanished into thin air... and no one but George Bush thought he had them anyway. This despite the FACT that we all know that he used them before (interesting trick to use something you don't have), and that the inspectors NEVER succeeded in acquiring the complete accounting of them that was demanded for over a decade. After a decade long game of cat and mouse, yes, the dog and pony show was resumed. It yielded Al-Samoud II missiles that were designed and built in violation of the very sanctions that Saddam was once again pretending to comply with. His behavior in the last round was indistinguishable from the previous decade of deception so George Bush made a judgment call that should have been made long ago. The United States Congress overwhelmingly voted to grant him the authority to do so.

The utter lack of historical recognition of the FACTs by some Left-leaners astounds me. But you go on believing it was all about Bush and his "illegal war" if it makes you happy. Rolling Eyes

I'll remain pleased that we elected a leader who wouldn't go along with the UNs impotent wolf-crying any longer. So too, will millions of Iraqis like the one referred to in my sig-line.

0 Replies

Alot has been written since I've checked in here, but yes finally somebody named George Bush that set about to enforce all the hollow words of politicians around the world, including Democrats right here in this country, plus how many U.N. resolutions, then when he does, some of these politicians and the U.N. blame him for the problem. Bizarre. I clearly remember when Clinton fired a few missiles into Iraq, and what happened, Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspectors. What did Clinton and the U.N. do? You guessed it, absolutely nothing. Gutless wonders, all of them. This is the very reason it is difficult for me to have any respect at all for many Democrats. They refuse to take responsibility for many of their own words and promises. Actually quite a few countries support the war, although not many have sent great numbers of troops besides us and Britain, but mainly when you hear about countries not supporting Bush, they are talking about France, Germany, and Russia.

Most of the soldiers returning that I know about say we need to be there, we are making progress, and there is much good news that goes unreported. It is my opinion that if we lose this war, it will be lost because of the press, and because of the lack of full support of some countries that should know better, and because of the Democrats right here in our own country. In regard to other countries, we are talking about the same countries that helped deliver how many resolutions and ultimatums to Saddam Hussein, but when the rubber met the road, some of them would not even back up what they promised. If the entire U.N. and all European countries were fully behind the effort, as they had pledged at the beginning of this process, and if that was fully made known to Iraq and the terrorists, and the media was more balanced in its reporting, we would soon see a much faster progress in Iraq, and the war would truly be won. But as long as the naysayers give aid and comfort to the terrorists, it encourages them to keep fighting on, making more car bombs, human bombs, and killing innocent men, women, and children, for what? You got me. I guess in the name of hatred and hatred alone.

0 Replies

I wonder whom Ann Coulter would have given the Oscars...

Perhaps it should be a separate thread: The Conservatives' Choice for Oscars.

Or perhaps you all can come up with suggestions: whom would you have given Oscars?

0 Replies

Whenever I read okie's posts, I can't help but remember that claim that conservatives are the "happy ones". Yeah. My eye. That's a lot of whining for the "happy, optimistic" party.

okie, what you are saying is basically: Hey, we are doing what we want, because we are the United States of freaking America. And if you for chrissakes wouldn't bother with having an opinion of your own but instead blindly followed us whatever we are doing, then we would have achieved our goals years ago.

Well. That might be right, but I happen to disagree with the premise that the course of action you approve of is the right one. I disagree, and I won't support it. In fact, I'm going to vote for whatever party is going to oppose it, because I think it is a mistaken one.

And that is directed (mainly) towards a few issues; amongst those the often-repeated claim that the United States don't have to follow international agreements, even if they are signatory and party to those agreements. I admit that the US are in a position to act like they do. They spend more money than the next ten countries combined on the military. So basically the premise here is: might makes right.

However, I disagree that torture should be tolerated, no matter who committs that act. And degrading a soldier in rank because he tortured an innocent civilian to death doesn't seem to me like justice served.

I disagree that "preventive invasions" of foreign countries is something that should be accepted, not when a third-world country does it, and not when the United States of America do it.

I disagree with the idea of "exporting democracy" by attacking countries, while the CIA is abducting people in third countries, people from my country, detaining them for years, holding them in secret prisons all around the world. That sounds a little bit too much like the "Evil Empire" we have experienced and been told about during the cold war. (By the way, spying on your own citizens belongs in the same category.)

Now, this is not an overall condemnation of the US or of all Americans. What I'm saying is: don't call everyone else "gutless", just because he's not following the current administrations course of self-appointed leader of the world.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

:confused: Yes, of course Walter. Don't you? Per your quote he challenged Okie's assertion that "He got their approval of Congress on the Iraq War". (Look past the obviously accidental of substitution of 'their' for 'the')

He did have approval from congress, so "declare war" is a transparent attempt at word play. Without it; his challenge is groundless. With it; he's deliberately side-stepping Okie's point. Where's your confusion?

Nope, BILL, it's the other way around. okie challenged my point that the president didn't have to ask Congress when he decided to invade Iraq. That's what I said. And I said that Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.

Any problem with that?

0 Replies

That's not what I saw quoted, OE. Anyway; the President did have to ask Congress for war powers... and they overwhelmingly voted to give them to him. Really.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

That's not what I saw quoted, OE. Anyway; the President did have to ask Congress for war powers... and they overwhelmingly voted to give them to him. Really.

I don't know if he did have to ask Congress. I'm really not sure. Nobody declared war. (Would be an interesting, seperate topic.... Does Congress have to declare e.g. a humanitarian intervention? Nothing in the Constitution, as far as I know....) However, he did ask for a lot of competences, including the ability to wage war as a last resort. Aye. And that left the decision to him.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie, what you are saying is basically: Hey, we are doing what we want, because we are the United States of freaking America. And if you for chrissakes wouldn't bother with having an opinion of your own but instead blindly followed us whatever we are doing, then we would have achieved our goals years ago.

Well. That might be right, but I happen to disagree with the premise that the course of action you approve of is the right one. I disagree, and I won't support it. In fact, I'm going to vote for whatever party is going to oppose it, because I think it is a mistaken one.

What I am saying is, we need to have consistency to have success. If you opposed the war from day 1, for reasons clearly stated, that deserves respect. If you never voted for the resolutions of the U.N. against Saddam Hussein and his regime, then you have been consistent. I am not talking about blindly following the United States, I am simply saying why not be consistent with whatever your recommendations are as they developed in regard to Iraq? What I am talking about is a U.N., including many nations, that delivered many resolutions and threats to Saddam Hussein, but when Bush lobbies for support to carry out the consequences of the resolutions and threats, the same support is not carried out as the previous votes for the resolutions were. I am talking about politicians in the United States that make many statements of agreement and support for Bush, and voted for his authority to go to war, which they clearly understood was about to happen for all the clearly understood reasons, and now when they perceive the political winds to be blowing in a different direction, are claiming they never supported it for various and sundry excuses, when we know they did. The attempt to isolate George Bush as apparently the only person in the U.S. that came up with the idea of fixing Iraq is in my opinion a very underhanded political maneuver by the Democrats, and essentially is an attempt to hang him out on a political limb all by himself.

Old Europe, I have no idea what your history is on the subjects of Afghanistan and Iraq. If you have been consistent in terms of what your positions have been, perhaps you oppose all military action for reasons explained, you deserve respect for your views and opinion.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That's not what I saw quoted, OE. Anyway; the President did have to ask Congress for war powers... and they overwhelmingly voted to give them to him. Really.

I don't know if he did have to ask Congress. I'm really not sure. Nobody declared war. (Would be an interesting, seperate topic.... Does Congress have to declare e.g. a humanitarian intervention? Nothing in the Constitution, as far as I know....) However, he did ask for a lot of competences, including the ability to wage war as a last resort. Aye. And that left the decision to him.

I'm no expert, and it's too late for me to be looking stuff up but as I remember it: Congress declares war. The President can do pretty much ANY damn thing he wants in a national security emergency (his discretion and definition), but has to report his actions within 48 hours. Beyond that he needs Congressional approval to act. Since we all know Congress couldn't agree on what time it is in less than a week; it's customary to get your permissions in advance. While there's certainly a definitional difference between declaring war and the softer, gentler terminology we use today; a President nonetheless needs Congress to approve his actions in advance or he could be assured of having no funding for same. This too, is up to Congress.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What I am saying is, we need to have consistency to have success. If you opposed the war from day 1, for reasons clearly stated, that deserves respect. If you never voted for the resolutions of the U.N. against Saddam Hussein and his regime, then you have been consistent. I am not talking about blindly following the United States, I am simply saying why not be consistent with whatever your recommendations are as they developed in regard to Iraq?

What I am talking about is a U.N., including many nations, that delivered many resolutions and threats to Saddam Hussein, but when Bush lobbies for support to carry out the consequences of the resolutions and threats, the same support is not carried out as the previous votes for the resolutions were.

There's a completely reasonable argument to make that the UN resolutions were a good thing, but absolutely did not warant the invasion that the US undertook.

It was in fact the argument that an overwhelming majority of Security Council members took, and it implies no inconsistency.

okie wrote:

Old Europe, I have no idea what your history is on the subjects of Afghanistan and Iraq. If you have been consistent in terms of what your positions have been, perhaps you oppose all military action for reasons explained, you deserve respect for your views and opinion.

I'm not OE, but I think the war on Afghanistan was justified and the one on Iraq was not. Different wars, different justifications and rationales. No inherent inconsistency in reasoning.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

There's a completely reasonable argument to make that the UN resolutions were a good thing, but absolutely did not warant the invasion that the US undertook.

It was in fact the argument that an overwhelming majority of Security Council members took, and it implies no inconsistency.

But it certainly implies impotency.

0 Replies

So you think because we can bomb and invade countries with no evidence of WMD or Nuclear Weapons (as was stated in the inspections report to the UN before the war) we are potent? I wonder what you think of wife beaters.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

So you think because we can bomb and invade countries with no evidence of WMD or Nuclear Weapons (as was stated in the inspections report to the UN before the war) we are potent? I wonder what you think of wife beaters.

I think very little of wife beaters.

I also think very little of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he doesn't stop, they warn him again ... and again .... and again ...

But I think an awful lot of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he don't stop, they arrest him.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
There's a completely reasonable argument to make that the UN resolutions were a good thing, but absolutely did not warant the invasion that the US undertook.

It was in fact the argument that an overwhelming majority of Security Council members took, and it implies no inconsistency.

But it certainly implies impotency.

The UN is making similar statements today about IRAN.

You trust their report as much as their report on IRAQ?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:
So you think because we can bomb and invade countries with no evidence of WMD or Nuclear Weapons (as was stated in the inspections report to the UN before the war) we are potent? I wonder what you think of wife beaters.

I think very little of wife beaters.

I also think very little of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he doesn't stop, they warn him again ... and again .... and again ...

But I think an awful lot of folks who tell a man to stop beating his wife, and when he don't stop, they arrest him.

Yeah there's a vivid metaphor. But the problem is, when they went in the man's house to arrest him, they found no evidence of wife beating.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know