- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You have no idea what "would" have happened by now. No idea at all. To claim that you do is just kind of arrogant.
Better, of course not. But no Bush, no Iraq. It's just the way it was.
You have no idea what "would" have happened by now. No idea at all. To claim that you do is just kind of arrogant.
No. I'm arguing what you think that means. Sure, they were cowardly. But they did not decide to go. In fact, while giving approval, they asked him not to and promised to fight him if he went outside the UN. They merely passed the buck to him, once congress critters started losing seats by resisting it. I merely ask that we be honest about what went on. At the end of the day, Bush, and only Bush, decided.
You are refusing congress with the French and the Germans. Voting to approve use of military force is not passing the buck. The decision to go to war in Iraq was bipartisan.
Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube
No, just correct. He and his administration pushed for it. No one else.
Again, they had the permission of congress. Are you denying that, making excuses for it, or just ignore it.
Yes it is. They could have declared war.
Permission to decide. This isn't hard. If Bush. Could say no, then he was the final word. They merely left it to him to make the decision. Because they didn't declare war, did vote on the final decision, but only vote to let him decide, Bush holds Blane for HIS decision.
Authorization to go to war amounts to pretty much the same thing.
You are making it up as you go along.
I think I've been consistent and have backed it up both logically and with links.
You are making it up as you go along.
fact.Your opinion.
Your opinion.
False. THe president is commander in chief---he's the decider, as Bush so eloquently put it.
fact.
You just don't like what he said. BUt, that is a fact. A congressional resolution authorizing the President to use force is not a vote to go to war. It's a vote to allow the President to choose war.
It amounts to pretty much the same thing. Or do you think the democrats did not know that war was imminent.
Voting to authorize the use of force simply meant giving the President Congress's support. You know, showing a united front. At the time, I did not think they (Bush/Cheney) would actually be stupid enough to invade. I lost a bet on that in January 2003 in fact.
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?
Here's a great timeline.I think the vote to authorize force was a good way to make Saddam open up his country for inspection. It worked. He let the inspectors in right after the vote. However, the D were stupid to trust Bush.
Just like I was stupid to bet against him invading Iraq.
The Burden is on Iraq ::: Feb. 14, 2003
The IAEA's ElBaradei and chief weapons inspector Blix report to the U.N. Security Council on Iraqi cooperation in the search for WMD. They say they have not discovered any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons activities. Proscribed missile programs are discovered and disabled. Blix does express frustration with Iraq's failure to account for its vast stores of chemical and biological agents it was known to have at one point. Blix says:
"This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it."
U.S. vs. U.N. ::: March 6-7, 2003
The night before Blix and ElBaradei are to report on inspection efforts in Iraq, President Bush gives a news conference in which he again says Iraq is hiding something. Bush says:
"These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world."
Blix tells the U.N. the next day:
"Intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons … [But] no evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."
Appearing with Blix, ElBaradei tells the U.N. that the IAEA has concluded that documents appearing to show Iraq shopping for uranium in Niger are, in fact, forgeries.
Invading Iraq ::: March 20, 2003
The U.S. military and other members of an American-led coalition invade Iraq.
Voting to authorize the use of force simply meant giving the President Congress's support. You know, showing a united front. At the time, I did not think they (Bush/Cheney) would actually be stupid enough to invade. I lost a bet on that in January 2003 in fact.
Do the Democrats make a habit of voting for things for symbolic reasons and not because they understand what they are voting on?
I think the vote to authorize force was a good way to make Saddam open up his country for inspection. It worked. He let the inspectors in right after the vote. However, the D were stupid to trust Bush.
Just like I was stupid to bet against him invading Iraq.
Here's a great timeline.
Iraq WMD Timeline: How the Mystery Unraveled : NPR
Pertinent part:
Blix says the Iraqi are cooperating, no sign of wmd found.
Bush lies or simply denies reality, ignores Blix's reports.
US invades.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?