10 Pro-War Fallacies Debunked

[KCConservative]

If the proof you’re talking about is the report from the commission investigating the intel fiasco, here it is. Please point me to where it says Congress saw the same intel as the president.

Where does it say they didn't have the same intel? This is the claim by the Bush bashing left. Therefore, they have the burden of proof. Junior HIgh Debate 101.

 

[argexpat]

Where does it say they didn't have the same intel? This is the claim by the Bush bashing left. Therefore, they have the burden of proof. Junior HIgh Debate 101.

Actually, it's Bush who claimed Congress saw the same intel he did, so the burden of proof is on him.

P.S. Congrats on finally making a (fallacious) argument!

 

[stsburns]

Excerpted from Salon.com:

3. DEMOCRATS "VOTED FOR" AND THUS "SUPPORTED" THE WAR

Many elected Democrats did NOT vote in favor of the resolution. Not to mention the millions of rank and filers who marched down the streets of our cities and were largely ignored by the press and brushed off by Bush. So to say, generically, that Democrats "supported the war" or to imply that there was tepid resistance to it, is false.

b) No matter how many people contest this point, a vote to give Bush authority WAS NOT a vote "for war." Bush also had the authority NOT to invade.

Now this I can prove you wrong in.

Everyone agreed to go on 9/11 resolution:

SUMMARY AS OF:
9/14/2001--Passed House, without amendment. (There is 1 other summary)

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@D&summ2=m&

Now to who voted on this resolution:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 23 )
Vote Number: 281 Vote Date: September 14, 2001, 10:44 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 98
NAYs 0
Not Voting 2

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Not Voting
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Not Voting
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

 

[stsburns]

Now about going to Iraq itself, was another house resolution:

Senators agreed to these terms in the bill:

H.J.RES.114
Title: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Hastert, J. Dennis [IL-14] (introduced 10/2/2002) Cosponsors (136)
Related Bills: H.RES.574, H.J.RES.110, S.J.RES.45, S.J.RES.46
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-243 [GPO: Text, PDF]
House Reports: 107-721
Note: S.J.Res. 45 [Daschle-Lott] was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq. H.J.Res. 114 [Hastert-Gephardt] and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 [Lieberman] were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 was a separate proposal not considered on the floor.SUMMARY AS OF:
10/11/2002--Passed Senate, without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; 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.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&

The votes:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

As you can see your statment is false because some agreed and some didn't. It was not the entire Democrat party against the resolution. :mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by stsburns:
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; 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.

I like how we say this bullshit, then attack anyway without UNSC authorization.

 

[oldreliable67]

Today's WSJ has an opinion piece by Dem Sen Joseph Lieberman. After his fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months, he concludes,

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

And thats from a Dem. Source is here.

 

[KCConservative]

Actually, it's Bush who claimed Congress saw the same intel he did, so the burden of proof is on him.

Once the left began accusing him of manipulating the intel. Nice try. :roll:

 

[aps]

Today's WSJ has an opinion piece by Dem Sen Joseph Lieberman. After his fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months, he concludes,

And thats from a Dem. Source is here.

Interesting. Too bad Lieberman isn't a person who served his country in a war. Hmmmm, who has FAR more experience with war and its repercussions? Lieberman or Murtha? LOL

 

[KCConservative]

I like how we say this bullshit, then attack anyway without UNSC authorization.

Bill, with all due respect, is there any chance you could stop using the profanity in the forum? Please?

 

[oldreliable67]

Interesting. Too bad Lieberman isn't a person who served his country in a war. Hmmmm, who has FAR more experience with war and its repercussions? Lieberman or Murtha? LOL

Just my impressions: actually, in this situation, on the basis of raw, native intelligence, I would probably go with Lieberman. Have you ever seen Murtha speak in person? Have you ever seen Lieberman speak in person? I have. Murtha is a well-meaning individual who has certainly served his country well, but if it were to come down to having to make a choice, I would give the nod to Lieberman every time. Just my impression from having seen them both, up close and personal, as they say. Certainly others will have different impressions.

Oh, btw, there are other ex- and current military folks with much more experience than Murtha who disagree with him. I'll see if I can't grab a link or two and post them when time permits.

 

[argexpat]

Now this I can prove you wrong in.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

First, this is the wrong resolution. Here's the right one.

Second, you inadvertently demonstrate that the Iraq war was a diversion from the "war on terror" and did not fall under the 9/11 terrorism resolution you site, since Iraq never "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..." According to this resolution, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Nice try, though.

 

[argexpat]

Now about going to Iraq itself, was another house resolution:

As you can see your statment is false because some agreed and some didn't. It was not the entire Democrat party against the resolution. :mrgreen:

You're completely misunderstanding the argument. No one is claiming "the entire Democrat party" was against the resolution. The fallacious charge by the Bush administration is that "Democrats voted for the war," which, as the actual text of the resolution shows, is a specious and spurious generalization. Then he calls these Democrats hypocrits for criticizing his war. But what about the Democatic critics who didn't vote for the war, don't they, under this specious argument, have a legitimate beef? Bush's charge is a classic straw man argument. A vote for the resolution was not a "vote for war," but, just as it states, a vote to authorize the use of force if nessesary. Of course the president should have the authority to use force if necessary. The issue is that it wasn't necessary, because Iraq was not an "imminent threat," it was a neutralized ex-threat, which did not warrant the rush to war without planning what to do once Saddam fell. No one voted to give Bush the authority to bungle the war, to disregard military planning, to not send in enough troops to secure the country, to send in troops without the proper armor and equipment, to disband the Iraqi army without pay and create a bunch of disgruntled Iraqis with military training who are now filling the ranks of the insurgency, to allow the looting which actually emboldened that insurgency, and on and on in a long, sad list of incompetence that has gotten a bunch of people needlessly killed. It's like a doctor claiming the patient gave him the authority to bungle the operation when he agreed to the surgery.

We lost this war the day Bush decided to wage it.

 

[argexpat]

Once the left began accusing him of manipulating the intel. Nice try. :roll:

He did manipulate the intel.

P.S. And who is "the left" anyway? Is that like "the Jews" or "the negroes"?

 

[aps]

Just my impressions: actually, in this situation, on the basis of raw, native intelligence, I would probably go with Lieberman. Have you ever seen Murtha speak in person? Have you ever seen Lieberman speak in person? I have. Murtha is a well-meaning individual who has certainly served his country well, but if it were to come down to having to make a choice, I would give the nod to Lieberman every time. Just my impression from having seen them both, up close and personal, as they say. Certainly others will have different impressions.

Oh, btw, there are other ex- and current military folks with much more experience than Murtha who disagree with him. I'll see if I can't grab a link or two and post them when time permits.

oldreliable, first of all, I love your posts. Whenever you disagree with someone, you are very articulate and extremely reasonable. Thank you for that.

Personally, I do not like Lieberman. I know that he is very good at compromising, and I admire him for that. But something about him just rubs me the wrong way.

Anyway, for me, I don't support this war. I hate that our soldiers are getting killed. Even if a soldier told me that he/she was willing to die for our country in relation to this war, I would still be angry if that particular soldier was killed in action. So when Murtha came forward, he was speaking what I believe, which is why I give him so much credibility (besides the fact that he is who he is). He is in close contact with soldiers who have come back from Iraq and with people at the Dept. of Defense. In my heart, I believe that he is speaking, in part, on what they have said to him. I would be shocked if someone currently in the military would dare disagree with the president. Look at what happened to the guy (whose name escapes me) who said we didn't go in there with enough troops. Removed.

I am fully aware that members of the military do not believe we should pull out. Regardless, I think we should.

Paul Bremer!!! I just remembered the name.

 

[argexpat]

Today's WSJ has an opinion piece by Dem Sen Joseph Lieberman. After his fourth trip to Iraq in 17 months, he concludes,

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern.

Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorist activity under Saddam, who was a mostly secular dictator who was threatened by Islamic extremism. But it is today.

The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making.

Again, this they were not able to do under Saddam. But they can now. In other words, this war has created the threat of Islamic extremism that didn't exist before.

We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America.

More circular reasoning. The bungled, badly planned war destabalized the country and created the terrorism that now threatens it. It's "critically important to the security and freedom of America" now, but it wasn't before, because we had contained and neutralized the threat.

If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Despite Leiberman's treacly claptrap, the issue is not whether we're going to let "the terrorists win." Thanks to Bush's complete and utter incompetence, they've already won. The issue is that the military cannot sustain the effort beyond the next two years. Not because they're incompetent or cowards, but because of simple military logistics. Bush did not plan on deploying the military beyond the fall of Saddam (remember we were going to be "greeted as liberators" and the oil was going to take care of the bill?), or for fighting a tenacious insurgency, and the Army is now stretched to the breaking point. They will have to pull out within the next two years whether we want them to or not. And Bush knows this, that's why soon you'll start hearing him talk of successes and goals met, and at some point he'll declare "mission accomplished" again and the military will pull out, regardless of the condition Iraq is in, which at this point won't be much better than it is today; infrastructure in shambles, anemic, untrained security forces, devestated economy, a people sickened by war and death, etc.

So the question isn't should we withdraw, the question is how will we withdraw. Does Bush actually have a plan for this, or is he waiting for a message from Jesus?

 

[oldreliable67]

expat,

If you're going to quote me, then quote me. If you're going to quote Lieberman, then attribute the quotes to Lieberman. Thanks.

...a vote to authorize the use of force if nessesary. Of course the president should have the authority to use force if necessary. The issue is that it wasn't necessary, because Iraq was not an "imminent threat,"

Assertions/opinions versus facts: To make this assertion as a statement of fact really requires some cite or substantiation that your assertion is more than merely your opinion. As it reads, that statement is merely your opinion (and you are certainly entitled to it). Either provide support for your assertion(s) or readers are free to take your statements as your opinion and accord to it commensurate credibility.

Back to the substance of your comment: The resolution authorized the Pres to make that decision. He made it. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't change the fact that the resolution gave him the authority to make the assessment and the decision that resulted from that assessment.

 

[KCConservative]

He did manipulate the intel.

Now all you have to do is show how this is true. Good luck.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by KCConservative:
Now all you have to do is show how this is true. Good luck

It has been shown. Stop acting like the "Vancom" Lady! La-la-la-la-la-la-la

 

[stsburns]

First, this is the wrong resolution. Here's the right one.

Second, you inadvertently demonstrate that the Iraq war was a diversion from the "war on terror" and did not fall under the 9/11 terrorism resolution you site, since Iraq never "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons..." According to this resolution, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

Nice try, though.

Bite me! Your missing the point entirely! The resolution was very vague, didn't you read it? Or do you just like to rebel!

 

[stsburns]

You're completely misunderstanding the argument. No one is claiming "the entire Democrat party" was against the resolution. The fallacious charge by the Bush administration is that "Democrats voted for the war," which, as the actual text of the resolution shows, is a specious and spurious generalization. Then he calls these Democrats hypocrits for criticizing his war. But what about the Democatic critics who didn't vote for the war, don't they, under this specious argument, have a legitimate beef? Bush's charge is a classic straw man argument. A vote for the resolution was not a "vote for war," but, just as it states, a vote to authorize the use of force if nessesary. Of course the president should have the authority to use force if necessary. The issue is that it wasn't necessary, because Iraq was not an "imminent threat," it was a neutralized ex-threat, which did not warrant the rush to war without planning what to do once Saddam fell. No one voted to give Bush the authority to bungle the war, to disregard military planning, to not send in enough troops to secure the country, to send in troops without the proper armor and equipment, to disband the Iraqi army without pay and create a bunch of disgruntled Iraqis with military training who are now filling the ranks of the insurgency, to allow the looting which actually emboldened that insurgency, and on and on in a long, sad list of incompetence that has gotten a bunch of people needlessly killed. It's like a doctor claiming the patient gave him the authority to bungle the operation when he agreed to the surgery.

We lost this war the day Bush decided to wage it.

Do you call it a potato or a pototo?

 

[stsburns]

The point you keep missing is that they agreed to this:

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Which Iraq fits the description. It is a "nation" and it does "harbor such organizations."

Any other lame excuse?

 

[KCConservative]

It has been shown. Stop acting like the "Vancom" Lady! La-la-la-la-la-la-la

Then by all means, show it.

 

[argexpat]

The point you keep missing is that they agreed to this:

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Which Iraq fits the description. It is a "nation" and it does "harbor such organizations."

Any other lame excuse?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (that would be Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia), nor did it harbor these "organizations or persons" (that would be Afghanistan and, again, Saudi Arabia, and about a half dozen other countries). But thanks to President Incompetent Jackass and his stupid, bungled war of choice, it does now. Congrats!

Any other lame rebuttals?

 

[oldreliable67]

those nations, organizations, or persons he determines[emphasis added]

Key words are in bold. Congress delegated the responsibility; Bush exercised the responsibility. Where is your blame for Congress? I abhor many of Bush's domestic and spending policies, but to lay the blame for Iraq solely at Bush's feet is a failure to appreciate the situation as a whole. But, it is more fun for Bush haters and those seeking partisan advantage. But thats just my opinion - YMMV.

But thanks to President Incompetent Jackass and his stupid, bungled war of choice, it does now. Congrats! Any other lame rebuttals?

Good lord, talk about lame! As someone said on another thread, "Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle." You know, you can do better than this. Too many of your posts are intelligent and reasoned (even if one doesn't agree, one appreciates well-founded arguments); you don't have to resort this lameness. You are capable of better.

 

[argexpat]

Now all you have to do is show how this is true. Good luck.

1. Democrats did not have "access to the same intelligence." The White House did send Congress a classified National Intelligence Estimate, at nearly 100 pages long, as well as a much shorter executive summary.The executive summary painted the findings in overly stark terms. And even the NIE did not cite the many dissenting views within the intelligence community. The most thorough legislators, for instance, were not aware until much later of the Energy Department's doubts that Iraq's aluminum tubes were designed for atomic centrifuges—or of the dissent about "mobile biological weapons labs" from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Intelligence estimates are unwieldy documents, often studded with dissenting footnotes. Legislators and analysts with limited security clearances have often thought they had "access to intelligence," but unless they could see the footnotes, they didn't.

Democrats in Congress also didn't know that many insiders did have reasons to conclude otherwise. There is also now much reason to believe that top officials—especially Vice President Dick Cheney and the undersecretaries surrounding Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon—worked hard to keep those conclusions trapped inside.

2. Not a single one of Bush's pre-war claims about Iraq have proven true, not Iraq's possession of WMD or even the existance of WMD programs, not Iraq's seeking yellow cake from Niger, not the mobile chemical weapons labs, not the aluminum tubes, not the link to Al Qaeda or 9/11, not the being greeted as liberators, not the Iraqi oil paying for the war, not the impending mushroom cloud, not the "imminent threat," and on and on. Not a single one was true.

3. The Downing Street Memo

4. In 2002, when the Bush Administration had already decided to go after Saddam and needed to russle up some cooked intel to justify it, Rumsfeld formed his own intelligence team to sift through raw data coming out of Iraq in search of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida terrorists. Rumsfeld continued to push this link as a prime—or at least the most easily sellable—rationale for going to war with Iraq, even after the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency dismissed the connection as tenuous at best.

5. The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reported that "...it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence agencies worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom." Later on, the report elaborates: "Some analysts were affected by this 'conventional wisdom' and the sense that challenges to it—or even refusals to find its confirmation—would not be welcome." This "climate" was shaped, the report continues, by a "gathering conviction among analysts that war with Iraq was inevitable."

And that's the story of how President Dumbass put the cart before the horse and manipulated the intel to justify a boneheaded war he had already decided on.