• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

30 Years of U.S. Military Strikes

Wow.

Wake up and smell the coffee. There was nothing illegal or unprovoked about it. He was given an ultimatum to show disposition of his WMD or else. After 9/11, we couldn't let him to continue to ignore the several UN resolutions, and agreements he made that stopped us short of taking him out in '91. Congress passed legislation for the invasion both during the Clinton administration, and Bush.

Guy, in the last week of January 2001, TEN DAYS after he was sworn in as president, Bush held a cabinet meeting discussing the invasion of Iraq, and the distribution of oil fields among corporations was addressed. And perhaps you've never read the Downing Street Memo, where even the English knew that no matter what Iraq did or did not do, Bush had already made the decision to invade. And then there was Bush's ghost-writer, who stated that Bush told him about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, two years before the Iraq war. General Colin Powell stated that the invasion of Iraq was never 'seriously debated', that it was apparently a foregone conclusion.

And let's not forget what the Bush administration did to CIA agent Valerie Plame when her husband pointed out that no, Iraq did NOT get the yellowcake from South Africa, when the Bush administration was claiming that Iraq had said yellowcake in hand.

So that's four different sources that showed how determined Bush was to invade Iraq no matter what - and a deliberate exposure of a CIA agent in time of war in obvious retaliation for her husband pointing out what the emperor's clothes really looked like.
 
So I'll mark you down as being against obama authorizing attacks on syria? Would that be correct?

I honestly am not sure - there are good arguments on both sides of the spectrum...and most of all, do we really want to open up yet another can of extremist worms? This retired Navy man thinks that should be up to the president AND to Congress - they have access to far more information than we do. But I do know this - Obama - unlike any of the Republican presidents since 1980 - is smart enough to get things done without putting boots on the ground. He's already proved that much in Libya.
 
Yeah, you definitely should be listening to someone else's--realistic--version of history. Not to mention, take a common sense pill.

Ah. So none of the Republican presidents put boots on the ground, while all of the Democratic presidents did? And Bush didn't lie us into invading Iraq?
 
I honestly am not sure - there are good arguments on both sides of the spectrum...and most of all, do we really want to open up yet another can of extremist worms? This retired Navy man thinks that should be up to the president AND to Congress - they have access to far more information than we do. But I do know this - Obama - unlike any of the Republican presidents since 1980 - is smart enough to get things done without putting boots on the ground. He's already proved that much in Libya.

Yeah..that was real smart not helping when our embassy was overrun and americans were killed....and then not punishing libya.

but we must.... MUST...punish syria...whatever,..
 
Ah. So none of the Republican presidents put boots on the ground, while all of the Democratic presidents did?

Is that what I said? oh, it's not? Gee-willikers, I didn't think so!


And Bush didn't lie us into invading Iraq?

No, he didn't, unless of course, you can provide us with evidence Bush knowingly and intentionally made false statements. I'm sure we all look forward to the library of links you're going to produce for us.
 
Guy, in the last week of January 2001, TEN DAYS after he was sworn in as president, Bush held a cabinet meeting discussing the invasion of Iraq, and the distribution of oil fields among corporations was addressed. And perhaps you've never read the Downing Street Memo, where even the English knew that no matter what Iraq did or did not do, Bush had already made the decision to invade. And then there was Bush's ghost-writer, who stated that Bush told him about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, two years before the Iraq war. General Colin Powell stated that the invasion of Iraq was never 'seriously debated', that it was apparently a foregone conclusion.

And let's not forget what the Bush administration did to CIA agent Valerie Plame when her husband pointed out that no, Iraq did NOT get the yellowcake from South Africa, when the Bush administration was claiming that Iraq had said yellowcake in hand.

So that's four different sources that showed how determined Bush was to invade Iraq no matter what - and a deliberate exposure of a CIA agent in time of war in obvious retaliation for her husband pointing out what the emperor's clothes really looked like.

So, who was it that ordered Richard Armitage to out Plame? Was it Bush, or was it Powell?
 
Yeah..that was real smart not helping when our embassy was overrun and americans were killed....and then not punishing libya.

but we must.... MUST...punish syria...whatever,..

REALLY? Is that the best you've got? ONE attack against an American embassy?

Here's a list of THIRTEEN American embassies and consulates that were attacked on Dubya's watch...and where was the outrage from our oh-so-patriotic conservatives then?

But then, we had a WASP in the White House, instead of a Kenyan Muslim socialist Nazi with a deep-seated hatred of white people. THAT was why there was no outrage during Dubya's watch, but there's a drumbeat for impeachment for the current resident of the White House.
 
Is that what I said? oh, it's not? Gee-willikers, I didn't think so!




No, he didn't, unless of course, you can provide us with evidence Bush knowingly and intentionally made false statements. I'm sure we all look forward to the library of links you're going to produce for us.

1. Then show me where my history was somehow 'revisionist'.

2. See the list of references in my reply #26.
 
Guy, in the last week of January 2001, TEN DAYS after he was sworn in as president, Bush held a cabinet meeting discussing the invasion of Iraq, and the distribution of oil fields among corporations was addressed. And perhaps you've never read the Downing Street Memo, where even the English knew that no matter what Iraq did or did not do, Bush had already made the decision to invade. And then there was Bush's ghost-writer, who stated that Bush told him about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, two years before the Iraq war. General Colin Powell stated that the invasion of Iraq was never 'seriously debated', that it was apparently a foregone conclusion.

And let's not forget what the Bush administration did to CIA agent Valerie Plame when her husband pointed out that no, Iraq did NOT get the yellowcake from South Africa, when the Bush administration was claiming that Iraq had said yellowcake in hand.

So that's four different sources that showed how determined Bush was to invade Iraq no matter what - and a deliberate exposure of a CIA agent in time of war in obvious retaliation for her husband pointing out what the emperor's clothes really looked like.

Who's revisionist history are you reading?

Ever think that maybe Bush was just following up on this:

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight

An Act

To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

(7) In October 1994, Iraq moved 80,000 troops to areas near the border with Kuwait, posing an imminent threat of a renewed invasion of or attack against Kuwait.

(8) On August 31, 1996, Iraq suppressed many of its opponents by helping one Kurdish faction capture Irbil, the seat of the Kurdish regional government.

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.

(12) On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

That is the first three sections of H.R.4655 -- Iraq Liberation Act of 1998

There is the actions in congress:

9/29/1998:
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

10/2/1998:
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
10/2/1998:
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.

10/1/1998:
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1857)
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9486-9494)
10/5/1998 6:12pm:
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
10/5/1998 6:54pm:
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
10/5/1998 7:26pm:
Considered as unfinished business.
10/5/1998 7:33pm:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 360 - 38 (Roll No. 482).
10/5/1998 7:33pm:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
10/6/1998:
Received in the Senate, read twice.
10/7/1998:
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11811-11812)
10/7/1998:
Cleared for White House.
10/8/1998:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
10/20/1998:
Presented to President.
10/31/1998:
Signed by President.
10/31/1998:
Became Public Law No: 105-338.
 
1. Then show me where my history was somehow 'revisionist'.

2. See the list of references in my reply #26.

Your list of references include a disgruntled former cabinet member, the alledged and unconfirmed Downing Street Memo and the revised version of the Plame Affair that doesn't mention anything about Richard Armitage being the guy who actually outted Valerie Plame, after her hubby came back from Niger with information from his cocked up visit.

The Nigerans told Joe, "oh no! We were never in negotiations with Iraq" and Joe just took their word for it, totally ignoring the fact that Niger and Iraq had indeed been negotiating a trade deal. So, basically, Joe came back and lied his ass off to the government.

Keep trying to put all these retreads on the road and maybe you'll get a little more mileage out of them.
 
REALLY? Is that the best you've got? ONE attack against an American embassy?

Here's a list of THIRTEEN American embassies and consulates that were attacked on Dubya's watch...and where was the outrage from our oh-so-patriotic conservatives then?

But then, we had a WASP in the White House, instead of a Kenyan Muslim socialist Nazi with a deep-seated hatred of white people. THAT was why there was no outrage during Dubya's watch, but there's a drumbeat for impeachment for the current resident of the White House.

ummm...ok..FWIW I despise both of them, so you can save all that hyperpartisan chatter. It doesn't mean anything to me.
I've been watching politicians lie since johnson and that was probably before you were even born...but whatever.
 
ummm...ok..FWIW I despise both of them, so you can save all that hyperpartisan chatter. It doesn't mean anything to me.
I've been watching politicians lie since johnson and that was probably before you were even born...but whatever.

Funny how while Dubya was in office it was hard to find a conservative (and I'm not calling you one) that didn't love the guy - at least for the first four, five years. But now every single time they complain about Obama this or Obama that, when I show them how he compares with THEIR guy, well, all of a sudden conservatives who still think highly of Bush are scarce as hen's teeth....

And I strongly respect age and experience, but while I'll be the first to agree that the person with greater age and experience is more likely to be right, it's certainly no guarantee - I mean, I think you'll agree that it's simplicity itself to point out seniors who really don't understand this world half as well as they think they do.
 
Funny how while Dubya was in office it was hard to find a conservative (and I'm not calling you one) that didn't love the guy - at least for the first four, five years. But now every single time they complain about Obama this or Obama that, when I show them how he compares with THEIR guy, well, all of a sudden conservatives who still think highly of Bush are scarce as hen's teeth....

And I strongly respect age and experience, but while I'll be the first to agree that the person with greater age and experience is more likely to be right, it's certainly no guarantee - I mean, I think you'll agree that it's simplicity itself to point out seniors who really don't understand this world half as well as they think they do.


I agree with all that.
Age doesn't = smart...but it tends to = Seen it all before. :)
 
Your list of references include a disgruntled former cabinet member, the alledged and unconfirmed Downing Street Memo and the revised version of the Plame Affair that doesn't mention anything about Richard Armitage being the guy who actually outted Valerie Plame, after her hubby came back from Niger with information from his cocked up visit.

The Nigerans told Joe, "oh no! We were never in negotiations with Iraq" and Joe just took their word for it, totally ignoring the fact that Niger and Iraq had indeed been negotiating a trade deal. So, basically, Joe came back and lied his ass off to the government.

Keep trying to put all these retreads on the road and maybe you'll get a little more mileage out of them.
Yep, I laugh every time someone thinks that is proof.
 
There's nothing to say. The truth is large. This is how americans want america to be, obviously. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.
We get exactly the government we deserve.

Yep, for sure. I have always looked at our government, our political system as being one party with two different wings, the Republican wing and the Democratic wing.
 
Your list of references include a disgruntled former cabinet member, the alledged and unconfirmed Downing Street Memo and the revised version of the Plame Affair that doesn't mention anything about Richard Armitage being the guy who actually outted Valerie Plame, after her hubby came back from Niger with information from his cocked up visit.

The Nigerans told Joe, "oh no! We were never in negotiations with Iraq" and Joe just took their word for it, totally ignoring the fact that Niger and Iraq had indeed been negotiating a trade deal. So, basically, Joe came back and lied his ass off to the government.

Keep trying to put all these retreads on the road and maybe you'll get a little more mileage out of them.

1. So the 'disgruntled former cabinet member' MUST be lying.

2. If the Downing Street Memo is 'alleged and unconfirmed', then WHY did UK Prime Minister Tony Blair not deny its veracity, hm?

Oh, wait, I get it - since the DSM says something you don't like, the memo must therefore be false. And since that 'disgruntled former cabinet member' says something you don't want to hear, he must therefore be lying. Why didn't I realize that before? I violated the Conservative Prime Directive: "Anyone who says anything we don't agree with must be wrong or lying or both".
 
Back
Top Bottom