Pentagon report on AQ ties to Sadam

[truthmatters]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

There were none guys and this is final

[Nukeman]

OHHHH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSH DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!

[FSUK]

The ironic thing is that the Bush lies led to Iraq becoming swamped with AQ.

[jimnyc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

There were none guys and this is final

Yeah, and? That does nothing to negate the myriad of reasons given for the invasion. I don't recall Al Qaeda being on top of the list.


The ironic thing is that the Bush lies led to Iraq becoming swamped with AQ.

The only lies are from those claiming there were lies.

[truthmatters]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=2&ex=1358744400&en=2768b1618d3d0539&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Timeline/Default.aspx



http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Images/Charts/WarCardChart.jpg

This last chart will make it very easy for you to see and count the false statements by this admin.

[Dilloduck]

Who cares ?

[jimnyc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=2&ex=1358744400&en=2768b1618d3d0539&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Timeline/Default.aspx

As usual, cannot think for yourself and must rely on links. The FACT is that the top reasons to invade Iraq DID NOT include Al Qaeda being there or connections to them. But I guess to expect a dipshit like you to remember something a few years back is too much to ask.

[Dilloduck]

It's the war on terror----NOT the war on al-quaeda. Get over it.

[truthmatters]

Facts are fact enven when you dont like them.

The admin made false statements about both AQ ties to Sadam and false statements about WMDs.

You can pretend it did not happen but the facts are overwhelming.

You have been had and you continue to pretend you have not.

Why?

[jimnyc]

Facts are fact enven when you dont like them.

The admin made false statements about both AQ ties to Sadam and false statements about WMDs.

You can pretend it did not happen but the facts are overwhelming.

You have been had and you continue to pretend you have not.

Why?

Because you're too much of a fucking imbecile to waste my time with anymore. I can't converse with idiots who can't comprehend the English language and formulate a readable response let alone debate the facts.

[Said1]

Facts are fact enven when you dont like them.

The admin made false statements about both AQ ties to Sadam and false statements about WMDs.

You can pretend it did not happen but the facts are overwhelming.

You have been had and you continue to pretend you have not.

Why?

You can't exchange assertions for facts, nor can you use deductive reasoning to explain the unknown. :)

[Dilloduck]

Facts are fact enven when you dont like them.

The admin made false statements about both AQ ties to Sadam and false statements about WMDs.

You can pretend it did not happen but the facts are overwhelming.

You have been had and you continue to pretend you have not.

Why?

Cause pretending is fun !

Why do you repeat the same shit over and over ? Is it fun too? :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

This is a brand new pentagon study my little sweetie.

[jimnyc]

This is a brand new pentagon study my little sweetie.

And you're still stupid, my little pet retard.

[truthmatters]

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."



http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCa...e/Default.aspx

Its just sad to see Americans care more about party than country.

[jimnyc]

I'll pray for you and your sickness, TM!

[Said1]

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."



http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCa...e/Default.aspx

Its just sad to see Americans care more about party than country.


Your link doesn't work. Your NYT articles doesn't equate their critiques as fact - I'm assuming you posted the article to give this group some form of legitimacy AND the first article indicates involvement with just about every other muslim terrorist group in the region was being used to his benefit, among other things.

[truthmatters]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946

Here is the corrected link.

Rummy said this on this date. It was not based in any facts that he was given by the intell people.

Maybe you like to be lied to but most Americans dont and they dont like to see their children, wifes , husbands , brothers , sisters, cousins and nephews die for the lies of politicains.

[Dilloduck]

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."



http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCa...e/Default.aspx

Its just sad to see Americans care more about party than country.

It's sad to see someone whose whole goal on life is trying to prove Jim wrong.
:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

It's sad to see someone whose whole goal on life is trying to prove Jim wrong.
:laugh2:
yah, THAT'S IT! you have figured it out! She comes here every day just to prove Jim wrong!!!!

:laugh2:

[Said1]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=key_false_statements&id=946

Here is the corrected link.

Rummy said this on this date. It was not based in any facts that he was given by the intell people.

Maybe you like to be lied to but most Americans dont and they dont like to see their children, wifes , husbands , brothers , sisters, cousins and nephews die for the lies of politicains.


You posted a source saying this site is a critique of presented information. A critique is an assertion of an opinion, not fact.

And stop with the emotional drivel. Presenting an emotional assumption is not fact either.

[Nukeman]

yah, THAT'S IT! you have figured it out! She comes here every day just to prove Jim wrong!!!!

:laugh2:NO! she actually comes here every day to say



BUSH DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHH EVERYBODY RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dilloduck]

yah, THAT'S IT! you have figured it out! She comes here every day just to prove Jim wrong!!!!

:laugh2:

oh ya--i forgot--she's also trying to enlighten us ! :laugh2:

[Said1]

yah, THAT'S IT! you have figured it out! She comes here every day just to prove Jim wrong!!!!

:laugh2:

Rah, rah. Where do I get my pom-poms.

[DragonStryk72]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080310/wl_mcclatchy/2875005

There were none guys and this is final

Okay, but prety much everyone but the most stubborn and hard-headed bush supporter already pretty much knew this years ago. Well, as it is, with the reports forming up, and his time in office coming to a close, he may be getting ready to have to actually answer for all of this.

[truthmatters]

You posted a source saying this site is a critique of presented information. A critique is an assertion of an opinion, not fact.

And stop with the emotional drivel. Presenting an emotional assumption is not fact either.

That site is a compelation of the statements the admin made in the lead up to the war. It then compares them to the known intell of the time. IT is facts not opinion.

Your just refusing to face the truth.

[5stringJeff]

The fact is, we had every right to invade Iraq for no other reason except that they broke the cease-fire agreement from the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything else is just gravy.

[Said1]

That site is a compelation of the statements the admin made in the lead up to the war. It then compares them to the known intell of the time. IT is facts not opinion.

Your just refusing to face the truth.

What truth? What is the truth as I believe it to be? Quote it or at least paraphrase what you KNOW I've said to be the truth?

Disregarding asymmetrical propaganda has little to do with what I believe.

[truthmatters]

These are public quotes.

They are then contrasted by the known intell of the time.

The fact that you are unable to accept this is very telling.

[JohnDoe]

The fact is, we had every right to invade Iraq for no other reason except that they broke the cease-fire agreement from the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything else is just gravy.That's simply not true in my opinion.... here is why:

Constitutionally we do not invade or go to war with anyone unless we are in an imminant threat and delcare war with 2/3's of the senate and house voting yea. No executive should EVER be allowed to make the decision to go to war....without the declaration of war by Congress. Sure we have tried to dance around this for decades.....it does NOT in anyway make it constitutional or right.

AND imo president Bush's doctine of going to war with countries that are not an imminent threat is the worst policy any president has put on to us, on to our soldiers and our soldier's families. We should not force a soldier to die for us for any other reason than an imminent threat.

And the cease fire agreement was between Kuwait and Iraq......NO WHERE on this agreement was the USA a signatory.

Thirdly, the UN who monitored the cease fire agreement between Saddam and Kuwait was against the retribution that the USA chose to take unilaterally.



jd

[Said1]

These are public quotes.

They are then contrasted by the known intell of the time.

The fact that you are unable to accept this is very telling.

Telling of what? It simply says that I don't buy into asmmetrical propaganda with resepct to war? :laugh2:

Still waiting for you to quote what I believe to be the truth or paraphrase, I'm not that picky.

The fact that you won't do it is very telling, too.

[truthmatters]

Propaganda?

I think you dont know what propaganda is.

They said these things. It is in the record. The intell we had at the time did not back their statements. They had access to the intell. They spoke contrary to what the intell said at the time.

[Said1]

Propaganda?

I think you dont know what propaganda is.

They said these things. It is in the record. The intell we had at the time did not back their statements. They had access to the intell. They spoke contrary to what the intell said at the time.

Do you know what asymmetrical propaganda is? Judging by the above, I'd say not.

Anyway, still waiting for you to quote or paraphrase what I believe to be the truth. As I said, your unwillingness (or should I say INABILITY) to do so is very telling and typical. And what does your assumption tell about me, remeber you said 'is very telling' and then I asked 'telling of what?". You said it, now explain yourself. Or would you rather make an exit now?

[truthmatters]

Why dont you tell me what makes this anykind of propaganda?

What it is telling of is that you will refuse facts to retain your views.

America can never move forward and will fail at everything it attempts if facts are not paramount.

[Said1]

Why dont you tell me what makes this anykind of propaganda?

Um. No, I won't repeat myself. I already explained this above. Not my fault you don't get it.


What it is telling of is that you will refuse facts to retain your views.

This makes no sense.



America can never move forward and will fail at everything it attempts if facts are not paramount.

Blah, blah.

Where is your evidence of my beliefs?

[retiredman]

The fact is, we had every right to invade Iraq for no other reason except that they broke the cease-fire agreement from the First Gulf War in 1991. Everything else is just gravy.

having the right to do something not mean that it was the right thing to do.

having the right to invade does not mean that, with Al Qaeda still very much on the loose, America would have supported invading Iraq if there had not been the stated certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and the implied connection with Al Qaeda and the further implication that those weapons would be given to Osama to use against us.

America would not have supported a diversion in the war against Islamic extremism to go punish Saddam for breaking a twelve year old ceasefire. period. Hence the need for the misleading "spin".

[truthmatters]

Um. No, I won't repeat myself. I already explained this above. Not my fault you don't get it.



This makes no sense.




Blah, blah.

Where is your evidence of my beliefs?

Cant answer huh?

[5stringJeff]

That's simply not true in my opinion.... here is why:

Constitutionally we do not invade or go to war with anyone unless we are in an imminant threat and delcare war with 2/3's of the senate and house voting yea. No executive should EVER be allowed to make the decision to go to war....without the declaration of war by Congress. Sure we have tried to dance around this for decades.....it does NOT in anyway make it constitutional or right.

Whether it is constitutional or not, it's how the US has gone to war since 1945. Will you also state that American involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (2003) were unconstitutional?


AND imo president Bush's doctine of going to war with countries that are not an imminent threat is the worst policy any president has put on to us, on to our soldiers and our soldier's families. We should not force a soldier to die for us for any other reason than an imminent threat.

Your opinion is noted.


And the cease fire agreement was between Kuwait and Iraq......NO WHERE on this agreement was the USA a signatory.

Actually, GEN Norm Schwarzkopf signed the cease-fire agreement, and the US voted for UN Resolution 687 (http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-2981/page_58/rect_74,357_819,603), which was the "official" UN resolution mandating a cease fire.


Thirdly, the UN who monitored the cease fire agreement between Saddam and Kuwait was against the retribution that the USA chose to take unilaterally.

The fact that the UN would not act to enforce the cease-fire does not mean that Gulf War coalition member nations could not act. As a signatory to the military cease-fire agreement that Iraq signed at Safwan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ceasefire.stm) in 1991, which Iraq violated (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm), the US had every right under international law and the law of war to resume military operations.

[Said1]

Cant answer huh?

Can't answer what?

Again, state my beliefs. Can't answer, huh?

[5stringJeff]

having the right to do something not mean that it was the right thing to do.

I won't argue with that point in general. However, calling the war completely unjustified is, well, unjustified.

[jimnyc]

Cant answer huh?

I'm still waiting for answers from you for nearly a year now! The Queen Retard of "run when I can't answer to facts" has the audacity to ask for answers!

I belong to at least a dozen political boards. They all have their share of conspiracy theorists, knuckleheads, trolls and downright idiots. But you, easily, without a trace of doubt in my mind - take the title of dumbest poster who wouldn't know facts if they bit her in her big 'ol mushy ass!

[retiredman]

I won't argue with that point in general. However, calling the war completely unjustified is, well, unjustified.

it may have been technically justified.... and I have never said otherwise.

being technically justified does not mean that it was, therefore, not a terribly ill-advised, counterproductive thing to do.

[truthmatters]

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Check page 63.

Personal insults do not make facts go away.

[Said1]

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Check page 63.

Personal insults do not make facts go away.


Who is this post for?

And again:
Can't answer what?

State my beliefs.

Evasion does not make your lies go away. :)

[truthmatters]

Its for anyone who cares about the truth of what happened.

You will have to deside if it for you by yourself.

There were no ties to AQ and Rumsfeld said clearly there were. There was no evidence of it. He lied.

[Said1]

Its for anyone who cares about the truth of what happened.

You will have to deside if it for you by yourself.

There were no ties to AQ and Rumsfeld said clearly there were. There was no evidence of it. He lied.

Now, state my beliefs, tell me what is 'telling' and tell me what I can't answer.

[JohnDoe]

Whether it is constitutional or not, it's how the US has gone to war since 1945. Will you also state that American involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq (2003) were unconstitutional?

I think Korea and vietnam were an overreach of the Constitution...going in to a full fledge war without Congress's declaration of war, needing 2/3's of their vote to do such....The others were skirmishes that we were oblidged to help with, none were full fledge wars that we stayed in...Afghanistan, a war should have been declared and would have been declared by congress imo, because Afghanistan was an act of self defense and in retribution for the 911 attack...., and Iraq in my personal opinion, from everything that i read on it BEFORE we even went in to it along with every thing since, I believe was not justified in any manner.

Your opinion is noted.

thank you. :)

Actually, GEN Norm Schwarzkopf signed the cease-fire agreement, and the US voted for UN Resolution 687 (http://www.undemocracy.com/S-PV-2981/page_58/rect_74,357_819,603), which was the "official" UN resolution mandating a cease fire.


can't find anything that shows he signed the agreement....? link??

it does not matter that the usa voted for this resolution in the security council, this DOES NOT in any way give any one of these UN nations a right to start a war, unilatterally, because they signed the agreement of the united nations.

ONLY if the nation in question has attacked another nation can that nation go to war against another sovereign nation....or is in imminent threat of being attacked....NEITHER were the case with Iraq and saddam.

The fact that the UN would not act to enforce the cease-fire does not mean that Gulf War coalition member nations could not act. As a signatory to the military cease-fire agreement that Iraq signed at Safwan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ceasefire.stm) in 1991, which Iraq violated (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm), the US had every right under international law and the law of war to resume military operations.

your link does not work....please show where we signed the cease fire agreement between kuwait and Iraq....
ok sorry got them to work just now...wearing blonde wig today :D )
And please show me WHERE in international law it says that any member of the un security council can go and enforce via a WAR, all on it's own, a UN agreement that wasn't up to par that they passed a resolution on?

Can any one of those UN nations that signed other resolutions against ISRAEL just go out there on their own and start a war with ISRAEL just because israel is not following the resolution that they set forth and signed?

Think about this and what you are saying is ok?

jd

[Said1]

And please show me WHERE in international law it says that any member of the un security council can go and enforce via a WAR, all on it's own, a UN agreement that wasn't up to par that they passed a resolution on?

Has any nation done this all on their own as you seem to be saying above? The statement isn't that clear to begin with.

[5stringJeff]

it does not matter that the usa voted for this resolution in the security council, this DOES NOT in any way give any one of these UN nations a right to start a war, unilatterally, because they signed the agreement of the united nations.

ONLY if the nation in question has attacked another nation can that nation go to war against another sovereign nation....or is in imminent threat of being attacked....NEITHER were the case with Iraq and saddam.

...

And please show me WHERE in international law it says that any member of the un security council can go and enforce via a WAR, all on it's own, a UN agreement that wasn't up to par that they passed a resolution on?

Except that, in that sense, the US wasn't starting a war, it was continuing a war already started, in which the cease-fire agreement was violated.


Can any one of those UN nations that signed other resolutions against ISRAEL just go out there on their own and start a war with ISRAEL just because israel is not following the resolution that they set forth and signed?

Think about this and what you are saying is ok?

jd

They (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, among others) tried that in 1948, 1967, and 1973. It didn't work.

[truthmatters]

Now, state my beliefs, tell me what is 'telling' and tell me what I can't answer.


I already did.

You keep trying to change the subject at hand to personal shit , why?

The admin lied to lead us to war and all the evidence points to that fact.

Yet you go on with these silly little questions instead of facing the facts.

[Said1]

I already did.

Where? I asked three specfic questions related to remarks YOU made first, in this thread. Where are the answers.


You keep trying to change the subject at hand to personal shit , why?

Firstly, I have in no way tried to change the subject. Secondly, you brought up my supposed beliefs on the SUBJECT at hand, first. You made statements about me you refuse to answer for, first. Thirdly, my comments were directly related to the topic until YOU started this convoluted personal bullshit with your own silly little remarks that you can't back up, still.




Yet you go on with these silly little questions instead of facing the facts.

Yet you post nonesense about people, with resepct to the topic and expect not to answer for it, why? Y

And btw, my beliefs, according to you (which you refuse to clarify) are on topic.


Maybe you should stick to the 'how to be a good wife threads'.

[Dilloduck]

I would like to see a list of "legal" wars please and according to whom were they "legal". Who is the final arbiter on what a legal war is ?

[truthmatters]

Where? I asked three specfic questions related to remarks YOU made first, in this thread. Where are the answers.



Firstly, I have in no way tried to change the subject. Secondly, you brought up my supposed beliefs on the SUBJECT at hand, first. You made statements about me you refuse to answer for, first. Thirdly, my comments were directly related to the topic until YOU started this convoluted personal bullshit with your own silly little remarks that you can't back up, still.





Yet you post nonesense about people, with resepct to the topic and expect not to answer for it, why? Y

And btw, my beliefs, according to you (which you refuse to clarify) are on topic.


nope you are wrong.

Please produce the post I made that you claim says this.


The admin lied to take us to war.

[JohnDoe]

I would like to see a list of "legal" wars please and according to whom were they "legal". Who is the final arbiter on what a legal war is ?
The ONLY legal wars we have had are the Wars that have been declared by Congress with 2/3's voting yea.

I can have my opinion and Jeff can have his opinion and others can have their opinion....but the fact is, that according to our constitution, it takes a declaration of war by congress, for any WAR to be legal.

Under any circumstances.

jd

[Said1]

nope you are wrong.

Please produce the post I made that you claim says this.


The admin lied to take us to war.



Your just refusing to face the truth.

As I said, you don't know what I think is the 'truth' or what I do or don't accept, do you? Just a typical generic answer by vous.


The fact that you are unable to accept this is very telling.

Here it is again. Then I asked you to tell me what is telling since you don't exactly know what I think on the subject.


What it is telling of is that you will refuse facts to retain your views.

Again, what are my views...not that this sentance makes sense, so I'm not really sure what's telling, still.


Cant answer huh?

Then I asked 'can't answer what?' Three questions based on comments you made first, all realted to the topic.


1. What are my views of the truth since you know I can't accept it.

2. What is telling.

3. Can't answer what? Gven that you supposedly asked a question, asking you expand on it doesn't seem too unfair.

[truthmatters]

How does that prove what you claim I said?

BTW Rummy said there were AQ ties to Sadam and the intel did not claim that.

[Said1]

How does that prove what you claim I said?


How doesn't it? Show some depth and thought. Prove you're not a backtracking, lying idiot suffering form p/a transference like others claim you are. :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Except that, in that sense, the US wasn't starting a war, it was continuing a war already started, in which the cease-fire agreement was violated.



They (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, among others) tried that in 1948, 1967, and 1973. It didn't work.

I don't believe these countries were part of the un security council or even part of the UN when they started these wars? I could be wrong on that but i don't think i am.... Thus, it doesn't answer my question or really go to the point that i was making with the UN and the nations belonging to it, roguely enforcing resolutions just because the UN has drawn one up and it was not followed....

If what you believe is okay to do and I am understanding you correctly, then it would ALSO be okay for those Nation Member countries of the UN now, could legally enforce on their own, ANY resolution that the UN has drawn up on Israel because the UN itself did not take actual action, wouldn't it?

jd

[truthmatters]

Iraq had NO ties to AQ. This current admin claimed it did. these are facts.

Some continue to refuse the facts.

Those who refuse these facts are showing their inability to think beyond their party line.

This is a fact.

[Said1]

Iraq had NO ties to AQ. This current admin claimed it did. these are facts.

Some continue to refuse the facts.

Those who refuse these facts are showing their inability to think beyond their party line.

This is a fact.


You're full of shit. That is fact. You can't think let alone tow a party line, but whatever makes you feel like you accomplished something with your days. :dance:

[truthmatters]

Iraq had no AQ ties. This admin said it did to help convince the American people to back their actions. It worked.

There was no yellowcake, no ties to 911, no WMDs , no real threat.

It has cost trillions in Tax dollars and resulted in the deaths of thousands of brave Americans.

Personal insult will not make these facts disapear.

You are in the minority who refuses to accept the facts on the table.

[jimnyc]

Iraq had NO ties to AQ. This current admin claimed it did. these are facts.

Some continue to refuse the facts.

Those who refuse these facts are showing their inability to think beyond their party line.

This is a fact.

Do you remember a man named Zarqawi? He setup terror operations in Iraq after he was ousted from Afghanistan in 2001.

The FACT is, you're an idiot.

[FSUK]

Do you remember a man named Zarqawi? He setup terror operations in Iraq after he was ousted from Afghanistan in 2001.

The FACT is, you're an idiot.

He only started terror operations, once the US post invasion by the US.

[jimnyc]

Iraq had no AQ ties. This admin said it did to help convince the American people to back their actions. It worked.

Are you stating that Zarqawi didn't setup camp in Iraq in 2001? He had longstanding relations with Bin Laden and other Senior Al Qaeda leaders before he even came to Iraq. While they weren't working in concert with the Iraqi leaders, that doesn't mean they weren't there.

[jimnyc]

He only started terror operations, once the US post invasion by the US.

He setup camp in Iraq in 2001 - we didn't invade until March of 2003.

[FSUK]

He setup camp in Iraq in 2001 - we didn't invade until March of 2003.


Where have you see evidence for this.

[truthmatters]

So now you are saying we attacked Irraq to get Zarqawi?

Wow that is a new one.

Tell me what you know about the british report that placed him in Iraq before we invaded?

When are we going into Pakistan and Suadi Arabia to name a couple?

[jimnyc]

Where have you see evidence for this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/06/08/in_depth_world/timeline1694613.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/06/09/zarqawi_timeline/

I can give you plenty more if that doesn't help.

[jimnyc]

So now you are saying we attacked Irraq to get Zarqawi?

Wow that is a new one.

Tell me what you know about the british report that placed him in Iraq before we invaded?

When are we going into Pakistan and Suadi Arabia to name a couple?

Shut up, you fucking idiot. Only a brain dead stump like you would read what I wrote and claim that's why we invaded Iraq. Every report available for the timeline of Zarqawi shows up arriving in Iraq in 2001 after he was ousted from Afghanistan.

[truthmatters]

According to the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence released in September 2006, "in April 2003 the CIA learned from a senior al-Qa'ida detainee that al-Zarqawi had rebuffed several efforts by bin Ladin to recruit him. The detainee claimed that al-Zarqawi had religious differences with bin Ladin and disagreed with bin Ladin's singular focus against the United States. The CIA assessed in April 2003 that al-Zarqawi planned and directed independent terrorist operations without al Qaeda direction, but assessed that he 'most likely contracts out his network's services to al Qaeda in return for material and financial assistance from key al Qaeda facilitators.'"


During or shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi returned to Iraq, where he met with Bin Laden's military chief, Saif al-Adel (Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi), who asked him to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq through Syria.[60][65][66] Zarqawi readily agreed and by the fall of 2003 a steady flow of Arab Islamists were infiltrating Iraq via Syria. Although many of these foreign fighters were not members of Tawhid, they became more or less dependent on Zarqawi's local contacts once they entered the unfamiliar country. Moreover, given Tawhid's superior intelligence gathering capability, it made little sense for non-Tawhid operatives to plan and carry out attacks without coordinating with Zarqawi's lieutenants.[60] Consequentially, Zarqawi came to be recognized as the regional "emir" of Islamist terrorists in Iraq without having sworn fealty to bin Laden.[60]





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Attacks_inside_Iraq

Then give all the facts why did we attack Iraq if the reasons given by the admin were untrue?

[FSUK]

He was not AQ during his time in 2001-2004. He became head of AQ in Iraq following the invasion. The fact is, AQ became active and alive after the invasion.

zarqawi was part of kurdish militant groups before then.

[jimnyc]

Then give all the facts why did we attack Iraq if the reasons given by the admin were untrue?

Was it not true that they violated 17 UN resolutions in 12 years? Was it not true that they repeatedly shot at our planes monitoring the no fly zones? Was it not true that tons of chemical weapons remained unaccounted for since the inspectors left in 1998 - and still remain unaccounted for till this day?

Seems the only thing untrue is the balance in your brain.

[jimnyc]

He was not AQ during his time in 2001-2004. He became head of AQ in Iraq following the invasion. The fact is, AQ became active and alive after the invasion.

zarqawi was part of kurdish militant groups before then.

Again, he worked in concert with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while in Afghanistan, and met many times with Al Qaeda leaders. He just didn't officially call his group "Al Qaeda of Iraq" and become the de facto leader until 2004.

[truthmatters]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

The weapons inspectors told them was no reason for the war.

[FSUK]

Again, he worked in concert with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while in Afghanistan, and met many times with Al Qaeda leaders. He just didn't officially call his group "Al Qaeda of Iraq" and become the de facto leader until 2004.

Ok, however Iraq did not deserve to be invaded. Obviously the US looked for stupid excuses in order to mask their real objective : OIL.

[truthmatters]

Maybe someday they will accept the facts but it may take years.

[jimnyc]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

The weapons inspectors told them was no reason for the war.

And the inspectors have what exactly to do with the prior list I gave you? How do the inspectors affect the 17 failed resolutions? How do they affect Iraq firing upon our planes? And even the inspectors claimed Iraq remained in material breach until the very end.


Ok, however Iraq did not deserve to be invaded. Obviously the US looked for stupid excuses in order to mask their real objective : OIL.

Oh brother, another one who thinks we invaded for oil! LOL


Maybe someday they will accept the facts but it may take years.

Well, aren't you in your 50's? And you're still dumber than a box of coconuts - so time doesn't fix all issues.

[retiredman]

And the inspectors have what exactly to do with the prior list I gave you? How do the inspectors affect the 17 failed resolutions? How do they affect Iraq firing upon our planes? And even the inspectors claimed Iraq remained in material breach until the very end.

IMHO, none of that constituted a GOOD reason to take our eye off the real enemy and shift our focus to Iraq.

[jimnyc]

IMHO, none of that constituted a GOOD reason to take our eye off the real enemy and shift our focus to Iraq.

My point is that these were the main reasons from the very beginning in the run up to the war. 'Ol pinhead TM looks for anything negative she can and uses it as a ploy to state we were lied to for reasons going into war and changes the reasons every time she finds a new article. Whether or not one believes it was a "good idea" or not to invade is a whole different thing.

[retiredman]

My point is that these were the main reasons from the very beginning in the run up to the war. 'Ol pinhead TM looks for anything negative she can and uses it as a ploy to state we were lied to for reasons going into war and changes the reasons every time she finds a new article. Whether or not one believes it was a "good idea" or not to invade is a whole different thing.

the main reasons used in the congressional use of force authorization and the selling points used on the American people to convince them that shifting our focus to Iraq was a necessary and logical step in our war on terror begun in earnest after 9/11 are not synonymous.

[truthmatters]

Arround 70 percent of the American puplic beleived these lies and the media was just as culpable in the deception as this admin was.

It will remain a very sad period in American history.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/04/06/cheney_reasserts_al_qaida_saddam_link/

Cheney was still saying it last year for god s sake.

I just wish the truth still meant something in this country.

[Yurt]

Arround 70 percent of the American puplic beleived these lies and the media was just as culpable in the deception as this admin was.

It will remain a very sad period in American history.

isn't true that most of saddam's generals thought he had such weapons? isn't it true that saddam himself said he had these weapons?

[truthmatters]

No

[Said1]

Iraq had no AQ ties. This admin said it did to help convince the American people to back their actions. It worked.

There was no yellowcake, no ties to 911, no WMDs , no real threat.

It has cost trillions in Tax dollars and resulted in the deaths of thousands of brave Americans.

Personal insult will not make these facts disapear.

You are in the minority who refuses to accept the facts on the table.

As I said, you don't know what I believe to be the truth. QUOTE one lie I believe without turning into a robot. You and your lies can't stand up to the challenge.....any challenge. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

No


http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=664

[truthmatters]

As I said, you don't know what I believe to be the truth. QUOTE one lie I believe without turning into a robot. You and your lies can't stand up to the challenge.....any challenge. :laugh2:


Grow up an join the debate instead of trying to turn it into some childish spit fight.

[Said1]

What is the protocol for signatory nations when a nation (such as Iraq) does not live up to resolutions such as the cease fire agreement? Does that nullify any type of agreement or resolution releasing any other signatories from their obligations outlined within the agreement/resolutions?

[truthmatters]

They were contained. they were no threat even though the current admin lied to tmake people believe they were.

If this was a democratic admin who did this you would be screaming for McVieghs to kill Him/Her.

[Yurt]

No


http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=664

PROBING HUSSEIN’S PLAN

In addition to Aziz, interrogators have systematically interviewed dozens of former Iraqi generals, intelligence officers and scientists in recent months, while trying to isolate them from one another to prevent coordinated answers.

Among the interrogators’ questions: If Hussein did not have chemical or biological weapons, why did he fail to disabuse U.S. and other intelligence services of their convictions that he did? Why did he also allow U.N. inspectors to conclude that he was being deceptive?

In early weeks, said officials involved, generals and intelligence officers close to Hussein typically blamed their government’s poor record-keeping for arousing suspicions in Washington and at the United Nations, repeating a defense used by Iraqi spokesmen during years of cat-and-mouse struggles with weapons inspectors.

More recently, however, several high-ranking detainees have said they believe that Hussein was afraid to lose face with his Arab neighbors. Hussein concluded, these prisoners explained, that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and other countries paid him deference because they feared he had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was unwilling to reveal that his cupboard was essentially bare, these detainees said, according to accounts from officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339750/

[Said1]

Grow up an join the debate instead of trying to turn it into some childish spit fight.


No. You grow up. You make claims within a debate about me and won't back them up when asked, then do the same thing repeatedly within the same thread. Either Stop making childish remarks...ie I believe lies, STU or fuck off all together.

[truthmatters]

AZIZ, WHO surrendered to U.S. authorities on April 24, has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war, an assertion that echoes the previously reported statements of other detained Iraqi leaders and scientists. Yet Hussein personally ordered several secret programs to build or buy long-range missiles in defiance of international sanctions, according to Aziz’s reported statements.

This from your own article.

Sadam and his people said they did not have the weapons.

[Said1]

More recently, however, several high-ranking detainees have said they believe that Hussein was afraid to lose face with his Arab neighbors. Hussein concluded, these prisoners explained, that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and other countries paid him deference because they feared he had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was unwilling to reveal that his cupboard was essentially bare, these detainees said, according to accounts from officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339750/

Remnicent of that term left over from the Cold War (?) in the context of deterrence, although I can't remember what it is at the moment (can you?). In any case, I don't think it's unreasonable to think he wanted to seem like a bigger, farther reaching threat than he actually was.

[truthmatters]

WASHINGTON, D.C.(PO) — Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq claims he has no nuclear weapons or weapons of “mass destruction,” but the U.S. Government isn’t buying it. Despite UN inspectors finding no evidence on their numerous searches, Bush and his administration feel the Iraqi government is still holding out.

“He’s lying to us,” says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “he’s got them and we know he’s got them.”

“Just because he says he doesn’t have the weapons, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t.” pointed out White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer.


http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=664


Do you really not remember the facts?

[Said1]

WASHINGTON, D.C.(PO) — Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq claims he has no nuclear weapons or weapons of “mass destruction,” but the U.S. Government isn’t buying it. Despite UN inspectors finding no evidence on their numerous searches, Bush and his administration feel the Iraqi government is still holding out.

“He’s lying to us,” says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “he’s got them and we know he’s got them.”

“Just because he says he doesn’t have the weapons, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t.” pointed out White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer.


http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=664


Do you really not remember the facts?

Who is this intended for?

[truthmatters]

In the lead up to the war Sadam and his people admitted they had no weapons. This admin still insisted they did. There was no indication he had them yet this admin still claimed he did at every turn.

[Said1]

Oh. So 'you' is everyone. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Will any of you admitt we were had by this admin yet?

[Said1]

Will any of you admitt we were had by this admin yet?

I never believed there was much of anything there, although I believed the bit about his ties to terrorist organizations- far more dangerous, regardless of their business name.

[truthmatters]

That als turned out to be a lie huh?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060511_poll_3a_bush_lied_abou.htm

"Some people say that President Bush lied so that we would go to war with Iraq. Others say he was given faulty intelligence and did not intentionally mislead the nation."
51.8% told the pollsters that they agreed with "Those who say Bush lied."
44.8% agreed with "Those who say he did not intentionally mislead the nation."

This was two years ago and even more evidence has come out that proves they lied is in the public forum.

[Said1]

That als turned out to be a lie huh?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_david_sw_060511_poll_3a_bush_lied_abou.htm

"Some people say that President Bush lied so that we would go to war with Iraq. Others say he was given faulty intelligence and did not intentionally mislead the nation."
51.8% told the pollsters that they agreed with "Those who say Bush lied."
44.8% agreed with "Those who say he did not intentionally mislead the nation."

This was two years ago and even more evidence has come out that proves they lied is in the public forum.


Pls, for once in your life, make some sense. A debate is more than cut/paste and repeat.

[truthmatters]

How hard is it to just face the facts that you are in the minority if you believe that this admin did not know full well the things they were saying were not based in fact.

They lied and our soldiers died for their lies. They will leave us with a 3 trillion dollar plus bill for the pleasure of being lied to and watching our people die.

I just dont understand why anyone defends such behavior.

[manu1959]

How hard is it to just face the facts that you are in the minority if you believe that this admin did not know full well the things they were saying were not based in fact.

They lied and our soldiers died for their lies. They will leave us with a 3 trillion dollar plus bill for the pleasure of being lied to and watching our people die.

I just dont understand why anyone defends such behavior.

i believe richard clarke was instructed by the clintons to do nothing for 8 years to embolden the terrorists and then george tenant who was installed by clinton lied to bush at the clinton's behest to discredit the gop so hillary could be president.....

prove me wrong....

[jimnyc]

How hard is it to just face the facts that you are in the minority if you believe that this admin did not know full well the things they were saying were not based in fact.

Why do you support and refuse to respond about the Democrats involved? What about the Senate Intelligence Committee that was a majority Democrats at the time and had a Democrat Chairman - and they all relayed the same information to the American people? They were briefed by all the intel agencies, viewed the intel and were privy to everything - and spoke with certainty of Iraq and their possession of WMD's and their terrorist ties. Why do you refuse to answer this?

Why?

Why are you so afraid to see the truth about those Democrats?

Can you tell me why you are purposely blind to this?

[82Marine89]

Why do you support and refuse to respond about the Democrats involved? What about the Senate Intelligence Committee that was a majority Democrats at the time and had a Democrat Chairman - and they all relayed the same information to the American people? They were briefed by all the intel agencies, viewed the intel and were privy to everything - and spoke with certainty of Iraq and their possession of WMD's and their terrorist ties. Why do you refuse to answer this?

Why?

Why are you so afraid to see the truth about those Democrats?

Can you tell me why you are purposely blind to this?

Isn't Senate Intelligence an oxymoron?

[manu1959]

Why do you support and refuse to respond about the Democrats involved? What about the Senate Intelligence Committee that was a majority Democrats at the time and had a Democrat Chairman - and they all relayed the same information to the American people? They were briefed by all the intel agencies, viewed the intel and were privy to everything - and spoke with certainty of Iraq and their possession of WMD's and their terrorist ties. Why do you refuse to answer this?

Why?

Why are you so afraid to see the truth about those Democrats?

Can you tell me why you are purposely blind to this?

how about this ..... when the senate intelligence committee said to go to war we believed them and now it turns out they were lying and we are to believe them now.....

seems awfully convenient both times.....

[Yurt]

AZIZ, WHO surrendered to U.S. authorities on April 24, has also said Iraq did not possess stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on the eve of the war, an assertion that echoes the previously reported statements of other detained Iraqi leaders and scientists. Yet Hussein personally ordered several secret programs to build or buy long-range missiles in defiance of international sanctions, according to Aziz’s reported statements.

This from your own article.

Sadam and his people said they did not have the weapons.

a month after the war started :poke:

therefore, the article still stands -- before the war, the vast majority of his own countrymen believed he had the weapons and saddam did not aleve those beliefs because it made him appear strong.

[The Reverend]

That's simply not true in my opinion.... here is why:

Constitutionally we do not invade or go to war with anyone unless we are in an imminant threat and delcare war with 2/3's of the senate and house voting yea. No executive should EVER be allowed to make the decision to go to war....without the declaration of war by Congress. Sure we have tried to dance around this for decades.....it does NOT in anyway make it constitutional or right.



jd
Technically war was never officially declared so officially there is no war in Iraq. It is a police action.

ALSO Bush DID have approval to use force in Iraq

One more thing how many UN resolutions did Saddam break? If I recall correctly and I do, the US was not the only country that deemed Iraq a threat and not the only nation that went in.

[JohnDoe]

Technically war was never officially declared so officially there is no war in Iraq. It is a police action.

I disagree....becauseeee, if technically it is a police action, then technically the President is NOT the commander and chief of this war, and technically he could not have claimed all of these War Powers of the President that the constitution allocates to him and so on and so forth....

He can't have it both ways... ya know?

ALSO Bush DID have approval to use force in Iraq

Congress did something they have NEVER, EVER done before. They voted to give up their power via the Constitution to vote on any specific war and whether to start one.... to the President of the united States.

They did not pass a resolution to go to war with Iraq. They passed a resolution to give the power and decision to do such, to the president.

The Constitution PROHIBITS this.... I will look for the passage, and what the founders had to say on it when i get the time... or search it yourself, but my hubby wants the computer so i only have a few minutes.... :eek:

So, like I said, this was not a declaration of war and nor was it even a resolution by congress to go to war...it was abdicating their powers to allow the executive to make this decision!!!!

And also, a declaration of war takes a major discusiion and it takes 2/3's of the house and 2/3's of the Senate to pass...

we are Soverign...WE RULE THE GVT that rules us. We choose when to go to war, never ONE MAN.

One more thing how many UN resolutions did Saddam break? If I recall correctly and I do, the US was not the only country that deemed Iraq a threat and not the only nation that went in.

It doesn't matter how many he broke, WAS HE A THREAT to us, an imminent threat to us?

ONLY under those conditions do we send our men and women in the Military in to a full fledge war to DIE for us.

Simple as that, imo.

JD

[truthmatters]

Why do you support and refuse to respond about the Democrats involved? What about the Senate Intelligence Committee that was a majority Democrats at the time and had a Democrat Chairman - and they all relayed the same information to the American people? They were briefed by all the intel agencies, viewed the intel and were privy to everything - and spoke with certainty of Iraq and their possession of WMD's and their terrorist ties. Why do you refuse to answer this?

Why?

Why are you so afraid to see the truth about those Democrats?

Can you tell me why you are purposely blind to this?

Who control of the government and the military?

Who made the decision to shit can the diplomatic options and desided to LIE about the intel and take us to war?

Why do you ignore that ?

[Yurt]

Who control of the government and the military?

Who made the decision to shit can the diplomatic options and desided to LIE about the intel and take us to war?

Why do you ignore that ?

why do you ignore saddam's lies and failure to allow the UN inspectors as required.....

are you saying saddam was the poster child of innocence?

[jimnyc]

Who control of the government and the military?

Who made the decision to shit can the diplomatic options and desided to LIE about the intel and take us to war?

Why do you ignore that ?

What's wrong, a simpleton such as yourself can't answer the easy questions I posed to you?

To answer your question - both the house and senate, comprised of Democrats as well, voted to authorize the Iraq undertaking.

Now can you answer my questions and explain why you give so many Democrats a free pass on the lies they spoke during the same time frame?

[The Reverend]

You just do not get it do you. War was NEVER declared on Iraq NEVER not once.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565364,00.html

Congress granted him those powers under the War Powers Resolution ACT of 1973

In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if American troops are already under attack or serious threat.

ALSO you are mistaken about the resolution that Congress passed.
What is said was

"authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Which Saddam refused to do.
It did not give the President power to declare war.

They were within bounds of the USC

Also more the 2/3rds of BOTH the Senate and the House passed this resolution.


It is as simple as hind sight. We know now that he wasn't a threat. BUT we did not know that then. Sorry but you cannot use what we know now to bash the decision of what was not known then.

[truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

More Dems voted against it then for it. How have I given anyone a pass?

You are the one giving all the blame to the minority party an d refusing to hold the people who had control to any kind of responsibility for the mess.


BTW you can see the resolution sited WMDs and AQ ties. You see they lied to congress too. They took advantage of the emotions of people right after 911.

[truthmatters]

WASHINGTON, D.C.(PO) — Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq claims he has no nuclear weapons or weapons of “mass destruction,” but the U.S. Government isn’t buying it. Despite UN inspectors finding no evidence on their numerous searches, Bush and his administration feel the Iraqi government is still holding out.

“He’s lying to us,” says Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “he’s got them and we know he’s got them.”

“Just because he says he doesn’t have the weapons, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t.” pointed out White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer.


http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=664


Do you really not remember the facts?


Rev the intel at the time showed he did not posses the weapons or AQ ties. The admin just cherry picked the intell to make it look like they did.

[jimnyc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Passage

More Dems voted against it then for it. How have I given anyone a pass?

I don't see you condemning the Democrats on the SIC, in which EVERY ONE spoke out against Iraq and spoke of certainty as to their possession of WMD's and connections to terrorist organizations. There were also at least a dozen prominent Democrats that spoke out against Iraq to the American people between 2001-March of 2003. They only changed their stances when election season rolled around and intel found to be incorrect. Try looking up who was on the committee and what they stated about Iraq, I've posted it here multiple teams but you conveniently ignore it - and the plethora of quotes from Democrats "lying" to the American people in the run up to the war. I notice you like to quote the Bush administration but I don't see a single quote from the many Democrats who made statements of certainty to the American people.

[jimnyc]

Rev the intel at the time showed he did not posses the weapons or AQ ties. The admin just cherry picked the intell to make it look like they did.

All the more reason to condemn the Democrats who led the Senate Intelligence Committee - and were privy to ALL the intel directly from the agencies. If it was cherry picked, and what they presented to the American people was lies - why didn't the Democrats who were privy to the intel speak up?

[Dilloduck]

All the more reason to condemn the Democrats who led the Senate Intelligence Committee - and were privy to ALL the intel directly from the agencies. If it was cherry picked, and what they presented to the American people was lies - why didn't the Democrats who were privy to the intel speak up?

Simple---to simple for even TM to understand---the democrats wanted to be on the right side if invading Iraq had been a rousing success. They gambled and lost.

[manu1959]

i believe richard clarke was instructed by the clintons to do nothing for 8 years to embolden the terrorists and then george tenant who was installed by clinton lied to bush at the clinton's behest to discredit the gop so hillary could be president.....

prove me wrong....

prove me wrong......

[Yurt]

Rev the intel at the time showed he did not posses the weapons or AQ ties. The admin just cherry picked the intell to make it look like they did.

so you admit there WAS intel that said he did

it appears it is you that is cherry picking. the vast majority of the world believed he had those weapons and as i have repeatedly pointed out to you, so did saddam's generals. are you saying Bush lied to saddam's military :laugh2:

[Yurt]

prove me wrong......

you're wrong :dance:

[manu1959]

you're wrong :dance:

try that in cross and see how you do..........:fu:

[Yurt]

try that in cross and see how you do..........:fu:

isn't it true you're wrong :laugh2:

[manu1959]

isn't it true you're wrong :laugh2:

all my facts have happened.....

[JohnDoe]

You just do not get it do you. War was NEVER declared on Iraq NEVER not once.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565364,00.html

Congress granted him those powers under the War Powers Resolution ACT of 1973


ALSO you are mistaken about the resolution that Congress passed.
What is said was

Which Saddam refused to do.
It did not give the President power to declare war.

They were within bounds of the USC

Also more the 2/3rds of BOTH the Senate and the House passed this resolution.


It is as simple as hind sight. We know now that he wasn't a threat. BUT we did not know that then. Sorry but you cannot use what we know now to bash the decision of what was not known then.

NOT to continue to be a pain in the rear end to you BUT :D, you might try reading in full what you actually are quoting to me, like the war powers act...

here's a link for you:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml

And here's just a part of it, which President Bush did not follow imo...nor did congress for that matter!!!


Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542
November 7, 1973

Joint Resolution

Concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

CONSULTATION

SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.

REPORTING

SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--
(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation; the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--
(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;
(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and
(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

(b) The President shall provide such other information as the Congress may request in the fulfillment of its constitutional responsibilities with respect to committing the Nation to war and to the use of United States Armed Forces abroad

(c) Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.


note MODERATORS : This is public material so there is no paragraph limitation! :D

jd

[The Reverend]

I read it and Bush followed it.

Point is that Congress gave him the power to invade Iraq, that was all that was needed.



(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

[The Reverend]

See if teh Dems REALLY wanted the troops to come home the could easily do it, problem is they don't.

[bullypulpit]

Yeah, and? That does nothing to negate the myriad of reasons given for the invasion. I don't recall Al Qaeda being on top of the list.

Indeed. If I recall correctly, the reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's reconstituted programs for <b>WMD</b> production. As we all now know, that reason was false.


The only lies are from those claiming there were lies.

As for the Bush administration lies, 935 of 'em, let me refer you <a href=http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945>HERE</a>. Documented and on public record...The prevarication purveyed by Bush and his administration in the run up to the war in Iraq, including attempts to link Saddam to Al Qaeda.

<blockquote>...before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

* Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

* Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

* The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.

* Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

* The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation.

* Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.

The charges that Saddam was in league with bin Laden, and carefully worded hints that he might even have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, may have done more to marshal public and political support for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq than the claims that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and was working to get nuclear ones. - <a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/john_walcott/story/10158.html>McClatchy, 3/2/04</a></blockquote>

[Dilloduck]

Indeed. If I recall correctly, the reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's reconstituted programs for <b>WMD</b> production. As we all now know, that reason was false.



As for the rest of the lies, let me refer you <a href=http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945>HERE</a>. Documented and on public record...The prevarication purveyed by Bush and his administration in the run up to the war in Iraq, including attempts to link Saddam to Al Qaeda.

<blockquote>...before the war and since, Bush and his aides made rhetorical links that now appear to have been leaps:

* Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was "overwhelming evidence" of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

* Administration officials reported that Farouk Hijazi, a top Iraqi intelligence officer, had met with bin Laden in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998 and offered him safe haven in Iraq.

They left out the rest of the story, however. Bin Laden said he'd consider the offer, U.S. intelligence officials said. But according to a report later made available to the CIA, the al-Qaida leader told an aide afterward that he had no intention of accepting Saddam's offer because "if we go there, it would be his agenda, not ours."

* The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.

* Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

* The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.

CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee last month that there's no evidence to support the allegation.

* Bush, Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell made much of occasional contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida, dating to the early 1990s when bin Laden was based in the Sudan. But intelligence indicates that nothing ever came of the contacts.

" Were there meetings? Yes, of course there were meetings. But what resulted? Nothing," said one senior U.S. official.

The charges that Saddam was in league with bin Laden, and carefully worded hints that he might even have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, may have done more to marshal public and political support for a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq than the claims that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons and was working to get nuclear ones. - <a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/john_walcott/story/10158.html>McClatchy, 3/2/04</a></blockquote>

Who cares ?

[bullypulpit]

See if teh Dems REALLY wanted the troops to come home the could easily do it, problem is they don't.

The point you're missing here or, more likely, ignoring...glossing over...what have you, is that they don't yet have a veto or filibuster proof majority in Congress. It's the Republicans who have been actively supporting Chimpy McPresident and obstructing Democratic attempts to bring this disaster in Iraq to a close.

[jimnyc]

Indeed. If I recall correctly, the reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's reconstituted programs for WMD production. As we all now know, that reason was false.

As for the Bush administration lies, 935 of 'em, let me refer you HERE (http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?source=home&context=overview&id=945). Documented and on public record...The prevarication purveyed by Bush and his administration in the run up to the war in Iraq, including attempts to link Saddam to Al Qaeda.

Yes, it appears the WMD intel turned out to be incorrect, which is far different that claiming it was a lie. As for your list, how come it doesn't contain the likely hundreds of times that Democrats made similar statements, many of absolute certainty, many from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and just as many from prominent Democrats?

[bullypulpit]

Yes, it appears the WMD intel turned out to be incorrect, which is far different that claiming it was a lie. As for your list, how come it doesn't contain the likely hundreds of times that Democrats made similar statements, many of absolute certainty, many from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and just as many from prominent Democrats?

I left that to you. And, of course, there was the issue of the intelligence provided Congress by the Administration...Cherry-picked, stove-piped and spun to a fair-thee-well...Not the same intel the Administration had.

But let's not forget that the Democrats were and are, by and large a pack of sniveling cowards in their dealings with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11. Ever since John Ashcroft's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists..." spiel in testimony before Congress in the wake of 9/11, they've been shaking in their boots...afraid of being branded unpatriotic or unamerican.

[Dilloduck]

I left that to you. And, of course, there was the issue of the intelligence provided Congress by the Administration...Cherry-picked, stove-piped and spun to a fair-thee-well...Not the same intel the Administration had.

But let's not forget that the Democrats were and are, by and large a pack of sniveling cowards in their dealings with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11. Ever since John Ashcroft's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists..." spiel in testimony before Congress in the wake of 9/11, they've been shaking in their boots...afraid of being branded unpatriotic or unamerican.

You're damn straight they are--they know full well that they are accomplices.

[jimnyc]

I left that to you. And, of course, there was the issue of the intelligence provided Congress by the Administration...Cherry-picked, stove-piped and spun to a fair-thee-well...Not the same intel the Administration had.

But let's not forget that the Democrats were and are, by and large a pack of sniveling cowards in their dealings with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11. Ever since John Ashcroft's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists..." spiel in testimony before Congress in the wake of 9/11, they've been shaking in their boots...afraid of being branded unpatriotic or unamerican.

But the Dems on the committee were privy to the intel, and were briefed non-stop by the various agencies. Why didn't they step in if they thought the intel was cherry picked that was delivered to congress? And if you claim intel was withheld from them, which it wasn't, why haven't they come forward since with the specifics of what was withheld from them?

[Monkeybone]

But the Dems on the committee were privy to the intel, and were briefed non-stop by the various agencies. Why didn't they step in if they thought the intel was cherry picked that was delivered to congress? And if you claim intel was withheld from them, which it wasn't, why haven't they come forward since with the specifics of what was withheld from them?

cuz "You're a big fat doo doo head Liar" is easier to say then, "Well, here is this proof and this to back it up" ? maybe Al Gore is too busy gathering evidence on another Global Warming, i mean Climate change, project to help them give evidence on how Bush lied?

[jimnyc]

Allow me again to quote the Democrats:

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, I'm certain about that - Nancy Pelosi in 2002

Unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons - Jay Rockefeller 2002

We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability - Joe Biden 2002

The president is approaching this in the right fashion - Harry Reid 2002

I can support the president, I can support action against Saddam Hussein - Hillary Clinton 2002

Seeing day after day and week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans to use those weapons - John Edwards 2003 (serving on intelligence committee)

I support the presidents efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein - Evan Bayh (serving on intelligence committee)

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them - Carl Levin 2002

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country - Al Gore 2002

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power - Al Gore 2002

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction - Ted Kennedy 2002

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do - Henry Waxman 2002

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. - Hillary Clinton Oct 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction - Bob Graham 2002

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - John Kerry Jan 2003

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons program. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies" - Letter to President Bush, signed by Senator Bob Graham and others - December 2001 (Graham was on Senate intelligence committee)

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Carl Levin, September 2002 (also on intelligence committee)

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, September 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan Resolution that's presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) Speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
October 7, 2002

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Bill Clinton During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
-- Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
-- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California) During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)Addressing the US House of Representatives
October 10, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."
-- Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate During an interview on "Face The Nation"
September 29, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.
-- Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
-- Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."
-- Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
-- Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)Speech at Georgetown University
January 23, 2003

BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent: And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?

REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate: I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?

GEPHARDT: I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.
-- Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana) Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003

"We have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."
-- Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut) In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"
October 7, 2002

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late. But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East."
-- Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia) Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."
-- James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman
In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"
July 11, 2002

[JohnDoe]

As per the rule of Law, the White house DID NOT brief the FULL INTELLIGENCE committees Prior to the invaision of Iraq and through the first parts of the war....

they CHANGED the rules midstream and only allowed 8 TOTAL members on both sides of the aisle from the house and senate intelligence committee to be briefed.

THIS IS WHERE the manipulation of intelligence that was given to the rest of congress got its root.

Dems and Repubs that were part of the select 8 should have NEVER allowed themselves to be used in this manner and should have followed the existing law/rules and insisted that the FULL intelligence committee be briefed in FULL....so that "we the people" could have had full representation and someone "looking out for us""....the citizens who are suppose to RULE THEM....we are the sovereign power, the gvt IS NOT.... for some reason people of today seem to think the gvt rules them??? That is a dangerous path to have that outlook and the farthest from why and how we were created as a nation imo.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence _and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

jd

[Yurt]

I left that to you. And, of course, there was the issue of the intelligence provided Congress by the Administration...Cherry-picked, stove-piped and spun to a fair-thee-well...Not the same intel the Administration had.

But let's not forget that the Democrats were and are, by and large a pack of sniveling cowards in their dealings with the Bush administration in the aftermath of 9/11. Ever since John Ashcroft's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists..." spiel in testimony before Congress in the wake of 9/11, they've been shaking in their boots...afraid of being branded unpatriotic or unamerican.

if it was cherry picked, then you admit there was evidence he had WMDs

[Monkeybone]

As per the rule of Law, the White house DID NOT brief the FULL INTELLIGENCE committees Prior to the invaision of Iraq and through the first parts of the war....

they CHANGED the rules midstream and only allowed 8 TOTAL members on both sides of the aisle from the house and senate intelligence committee to be briefed.

THIS IS WHERE the manipulation of intelligence that was given to the rest of congress got its root.

Dems and Repubs that were part of the select 8 should have NEVER allowed themselves to be used in this manner and should have followed the existing law/rules and insisted that the FULL intelligence committee be briefed in FULL....so that "we the people" could have had full representation and someone "looking out for us""....the citizens who are suppose to RULE THEM....we are the sovereign power, the gvt IS NOT.... for some reason people of today seem to think the gvt rules them??? That is a dangerous path to have that outlook and the farthest from why and how we were created as a nation imo.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence _and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

jd

and most of these same ppl want National Healthcare and more gvt involvment. it is all just a big downwards spiral. us and the rest of the world.

[JohnDoe]

and most of these same ppl want National Healthcare and more gvt involvment. it is all just a big downwards spiral. us and the rest of the world.

This is what i do not understand about my fellow Democrats....

Why would they want to give big business such a GIFT HORSE with national healthcare paid for by our taxes...big business pays for 50% of our healthcare costs in the USA now and this would be one of the biggest gifts EVER to them, taking away their contributions to paying for our healthcare and putting it all on to the middle class and upper class via taxes?

you would think that the way Democratic members espouse the unfairness given to big businesses by our Congress due to all the tit for tats and corporate welfare given, they would see that this is really just a gift to the businesses that could eventually bankrupt us, imo.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that we as a country need to address the rising healthcare costs and address those that do not have healthcare because of the unreachable expense to do such....I just think a national healthcare plan will NOT address these rising costs but only fuel them even more....making the situation even worse.

jd

[jimnyc]

As per the rule of Law, the White house DID NOT brief the FULL INTELLIGENCE committees Prior to the invaision of Iraq and through the first parts of the war....

they CHANGED the rules midstream and only allowed 8 TOTAL members on both sides of the aisle from the house and senate intelligence committee to be briefed.

THIS IS WHERE the manipulation of intelligence that was given to the rest of congress got its root.

Dems and Repubs that were part of the select 8 should have NEVER allowed themselves to be used in this manner and should have followed the existing law/rules and insisted that the FULL intelligence committee be briefed in FULL....so that "we the people" could have had full representation and someone "looking out for us""....the citizens who are suppose to RULE THEM....we are the sovereign power, the gvt IS NOT.... for some reason people of today seem to think the gvt rules them??? That is a dangerous path to have that outlook and the farthest from why and how we were created as a nation imo.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/HowSenate_Intelligence_chairman_fixed_intelligence _and_diverted_blame_fromWhite_House__0811.html

jd

And how do you explain that to Bob Graham, the Democrat chairman of the SIC until 2003? Roberts didn't become chairman of the committee until 2003, 3 months prior to the war.

[retiredman]

And how do you explain that to Bob Graham, the Democrat chairman of the SIC until 2003? Roberts didn't become chairman of the committee until 2003, 3 months prior to the war.
I tell him he did a shitty job.

I am not at all hesitant to throw democrats under the bus who fucked up in the run up to Iraq - unless they have repented.

[jimnyc]

I tell him he did a shitty job.

I am not at all hesitant to throw democrats under the bus who fucked up in the run up to Iraq - unless they have repented.

Thank you.

I just get a bit tired of hearing about these retarded "cover up" stories when people can't even take the time to get the facts straight before repeating stupid rhetoric. Graham, Rockefeller, Levin, Feinstein, Durbin, Edwards & a handful of other Democrats were all privy to the full intel and briefings directly from the agencies involved.

[JohnDoe]

And how do you explain that to Bob Graham, the Democrat chairman of the SIC until 2003? Roberts didn't become chairman of the committee until 2003, 3 months prior to the war.

This is what BobGraham had to say about it....the article IS NOT covered by copywrite restrictions so I am posting the entire commentary by Senator Graham:


What I Knew Before the Invasion

By Bob Graham

Sunday, November 20, 2005

In the past week President Bush has twice attacked Democrats for being hypocrites on the Iraq war. "[M]ore than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he said.

The president's attacks are outrageous. Yes, more than 100 Democrats voted to authorize him to take the nation to war. Most of them, though, like their Republican colleagues, did so in the legitimate belief that the president and his administration were truthful in their statements that Saddam Hussein was a gathering menace -- that if Hussein was not disarmed, the smoking gun would become a mushroom cloud.

The president has undermined trust. No longer will the members of Congress be entitled to accept his veracity. Caveat emptor has become the word. Every member of Congress is on his or her own to determine the truth.

As chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, and the run-up to the Iraq war, I probably had as much access to the intelligence on which the war was predicated as any other member of Congress.

I, too, presumed the president was being truthful -- until a series of events undercut that confidence.

In February 2002, after a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan, the commanding officer, Gen. Tommy Franks, told me the war was being compromised as specialized personnel and equipment were being shifted from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq -- a war more than a year away. Even at this early date, the White House was signaling that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein was of such urgency that it had priority over the crushing of al Qaeda.

In the early fall of 2002, a joint House-Senate intelligence inquiry committee, which I co-chaired, was in the final stages of its investigation of what happened before Sept. 11. As the unclassified final report of the inquiry documented, several failures of intelligence contributed to the tragedy. But as of October 2002, 13 months later, the administration was resisting initiating any substantial action to understand, much less fix, those problems.

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.

From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.

On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He is currently a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics.




btw, NOTE that Bob Grahajm DID NOT vote to give the president permission to preeminently attack Iraq. He voted NO.....why do YOU think that is...? Probably because he knew the truth....that was tied to the top secret docs that no one else took the time to read!

You would think that you could trust the President and his team and one would be able to read the NIE and KNOW that it was a FULL SUMMARY of what was going on....that simply was not the case as this editorial by Senator Graham points out.... and he also explains how he too bought in to all the rhetoric and exagerations UNTILL he viewed the full intelligence report showing the dissent ever present!

So, YES, I suppose I blame the Dems and Repubs that trusted the NIE that the president had presented to them for being fooled by their Trust in the President.....

Just because some Dems voted for the resolution giving the President the power to make the judgement of whether to send our troops in to a war without knowing the full intelligence story, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.....imho....it does not absolve the President and his manipulation of intelligence to the Congress and to us.

[Yurt]

if it was cherry picked, then you admit there was evidence he had WMDs

:dance:

[manu1959]

I tell him he did a shitty job.

I am not at all hesitant to throw democrats under the bus who fucked up in the run up to Iraq - unless they have repented.

bush repented...he is just trying to fix what he broke rather than just bail like clinton did in rawanda and somalia....

[jimnyc]

And again, for those with reading comprehension issues - the SIC was privy to the same intel, not handpicked intel. Maybe they weren't satisfied with what they received, but that's different than stating that they were misled. Seems like he had more of an issue with Tenet than the White House to me. And he waits 2 1/2 years to speak his reservations? Yeah, he's competent!

But, the point is, a short while ago you were claiming that they didn't get the intel because of Roberts being the Chairman of the committee and now the story changes a little bit.

Bottom line is that failures were made all over within the intelligence committee. Anyone who wants to make claims of "lies" must then claim that the Democrats did the exact same thing.

The rhetoric is absolutely hilarious considering the hundreds of quotes from top Dems over the course of 2 years from 2001 to the date Iraq was invaded. They didn't question the intel, those that spoke to the American people, they spoke with certainty. They did so since 1998!! None of this "lying" crap started until congressional election season rolled around.

[retiredman]

bush repented...he is just trying to fix what he broke rather than just bail like clinton did in rawanda and somalia....

got a link to where Bush said he made a mistake by invading Iraq?

I'll wait.

[manu1959]

got a link to where Bush said he made a mistake by invading Iraq?

I'll wait.

god told me he repented.....

[The Reverend]

The point you're missing here or, more likely, ignoring...glossing over...what have you, is that they don't yet have a veto or filibuster proof majority in Congress. It's the Republicans who have been actively supporting Chimpy McPresident and obstructing Democratic attempts to bring this disaster in Iraq to a close.

All the have to do is REFUSE to fund it. Viola it is over.

[manu1959]

All the have to do is REFUSE to fund it. Viola it is over.

exactly.....they haven't even brought a resolution to the floor to get voted down so they can say they tried.....

the fact is the dems are talking out of both sides of their mouth.....

[retiredman]

god told me he repented.....


you'd think that God would provide you a link if you asked Him.

[manu1959]

you'd think that God would provide you a link if you asked Him.

first off god is a woman cuz no man would have taken the time to create this mess much less put up with it for so long......and no she is a word of mouth kinda person....

[JohnDoe]

exactly.....they haven't even brought a resolution to the floor to get voted down so they can say they tried.....

the fact is the dems are talking out of both sides of their mouth.....

What? you actually want the Dems in Congress to bring up defunding the war AGAIN, WHEN you KNOW that they do not have the votes to over ride the Republican minority filibuster?

SURELY, you really do not think that the Congress should waste time on this defunding legislation just to make a political point.... again?

The war CAN NOT be defunded by the Democrats in Congress because they do not have a super majority in the Senate to override a veto or filibuster...that is just the way it is....

so, the HOGWASH about the Dems just need to defund it, is purely partisan rhetoric imho!

jd

[JohnDoe]

first off god is a woman cuz no man would have taken the time to create this mess much less put up with it for so long......and no she is a word of mouth kinda person.... in the first creation story in Genesis, BOTH woman and man were made in the image of God....some say this woman was Lilith.... So man and woman were equal, BOTH coming from the image of God....

so in my opinion, God is BOTH male and female! :)

The story goes, only later, when lilith refused to be on the bottom, missionary, with Adam that the "fight began" and she left this world (though continuing to curse and haunt it) and Adam... because he could not accept Lilith being his equal, and then we get an additional creation story in Genesis, where God then made Eve out of Adam's rib....subservent to him, so to make Adam happy.... :laugh2:

Lilith is mentioned in one other book of the Bible that was cannonized, I believe it was Isaiah? but is in several of the Apocalyptic books of the Bible.

It is quite interesting if you get in to it....:)

soooo, God is both Male and Female imo!

jd

[manu1959]

in the first creation story in Genesis, BOTH woman and man were made in the image of God....some say this woman was Lilith.... So man and woman were equal, BOTH coming from the image of God....

so in my opinion, God is BOTH male and female! :)

The story goes, only later, when lilith refused to be on the bottom, missionary, with Adam that the "fight began" and she left this world (though continuing to curse and haunt it) and Adam... because he could not accept Lilith being his equal, and then we get an additional creation story in Genesis, where God then made Eve out of Adam's rib....subservent to him, so to make Adam happy.... :laugh2:

Lilith is mentioned in one other book of the Bible that was cannonized, I believe it was Isaiah? but is in several of the Apocalyptic books of the Bible.

It is quite interesting if you get in to it....:)

soooo, God is both Male and Female imo!

jd

so god is a hermaphrodite....damn i learn something new every day....

[manu1959]

What? you actually want the Dems in Congress to bring up defunding the war AGAIN, WHEN you KNOW that they do not have the votes to over ride the Republican minority filibuster?

SURELY, you really do not think that the Congress should waste time on this defunding legislation just to make a political point.... again?

The war CAN NOT be defunded by the Democrats in Congress because they do not have a super majority in the Senate to override a veto or filibuster...that is just the way it is....

so, the HOGWASH about the Dems just need to defund it, is purely partisan rhetoric imho!

jd

so the dems won't listen to the will of the people and even try to defund the war because they are afraid of a filibuster.....

and you want these people to take more of you pay check and you guns and set up socialized medicine.....holy crap...

[JohnDoe]

so the dems won't listen to the will of the people and even try to defund the war because they are afraid of a filibuster.....

and you want these people to take more of you pay check and you guns and set up socialized medicine.....holy crap...

NO.... not at all!

They don't want to waste the tax payer's money by wasting more time to try to pass legislation to defund the war when there is NO CHANCE IN HEAVEN OR HELL that this legislation will pass BECAUSE the Republicans holding it up in the Senate REFUSE to listen to the "will of the people''! :slap:

jd

[manu1959]

NO.... not at all!

They don't want to waste the tax payer's money by wasting more time to try to pass legislation to defund the war when there is NO CHANCE IN HEAVEN OR HELL that this legislation will pass BECAUSE the Republicans holding it up in the Senate REFUSE to listen to the "will of the people! :slap:

jd

yes much better to spend billions on a war they don't believe in and the people dont want......

plus they are busy with baseball and football....."investigations".....

[JohnDoe]

yes much better to spend billions on a war they don't believe in and the people dont want......

plus they are busy with baseball and football....."investigations".....

They CAN'T defund the war, NO MATTER WHAT, as long as the Republicans in the Senate continue to hold the country hostage to their minority will....

And as far as wasting time on other things like baseball....I could not agree with you more!

jd

[JohnDoe]

They CAN'T defund the war, NO MATTER WHAT, as long as the Republicans in the Senate continue to hold the country hostage to their minority will....

And as far as wasting time on other things like baseball....I could not agree with you more!

jd
And let me add that i don't think it is in the best interest of the country to keep bringing this resolution up....especially since there is no resolve among them....it looks foolish to us and the world and is foolish....the bickering among them hurts us....we need to go back to the times BEFORE CLINTON, when senators of the opposite side knew how to compromise and negotiate without the 1000% increase in earmarks and pork but because of gentleman agreements.... they need to get drunk together again and sing in quartets together again and have dinner with one another again, still holding firm to their political beliefs, but learning that political beliefs are NOT EVERYTHING in life itself...

jd

[The Reverend]

What? you actually want the Dems in Congress to bring up defunding the war AGAIN, WHEN you KNOW that they do not have the votes to over ride the Republican minority filibuster?

SURELY, you really do not think that the Congress should waste time on this defunding legislation just to make a political point.... again?

The war CAN NOT be defunded by the Democrats in Congress because they do not have a super majority in the Senate to override a veto or filibuster...that is just the way it is....

so, the HOGWASH about the Dems just need to defund it, is purely partisan rhetoric imho!

jd
It is not hogwash. They keep passing the funding bills.

[manu1959]

It is not hogwash. They keep passing the funding bills.

no shit .... they keep voting yes send more money and saying the war should end.....

[The Reverend]

first off god is a woman cuz no man would have taken the time to create this mess much less put up with it for so long......and no she is a word of mouth kinda person....


in the first creation story in Genesis, BOTH woman and man were made in the image of God....some say this woman was Lilith.... So man and woman were equal, BOTH coming from the image of God....

so in my opinion, God is BOTH male and female! :)

The story goes, only later, when lilith refused to be on the bottom, missionary, with Adam that the "fight began" and she left this world (though continuing to curse and haunt it) and Adam... because he could not accept Lilith being his equal, and then we get an additional creation story in Genesis, where God then made Eve out of Adam's rib....subservent to him, so to make Adam happy.... :laugh2:

Lilith is mentioned in one other book of the Bible that was cannonized, I believe it was Isaiah? but is in several of the Apocalyptic books of the Bible.

It is quite interesting if you get in to it....:)

soooo, God is both Male and Female imo!

jd
Luke 11:1-5
1One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples."

2He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,[a]
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.[b]
3Give us each day our daily bread.
4Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.[c]
And lead us not into temptation.[d]'


They CAN'T defund the war, NO MATTER WHAT, as long as the Republicans in the Senate continue to hold the country hostage to their minority will....

And as far as wasting time on other things like baseball....I could not agree with you more!

jd

Not true
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/01/post_23.html
The truth is that there is a lot that Congress could do. Among other things, it could stop the war. But neither the president nor many Democrats want to publicly entertain such a possibility. Indeed, the president has insisted, again, that he alone makes such decisions. When asked about what Congress can do if it opposes his build-up, Bush was dismissive and said, "Frankly, that's not their responsibility." Of course, the president acknowledged, "They could try to stop me from doing it...but I made my decision, and we're going forward."

[The Reverend]

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) today published an excellent analysis of how the mainstream media and Democratic Party are falsely conveying a sense of official powerlessness to end the war in Iraq. The reality is that the Democrat-controlled Congress could defund the war effort immediately if it had the will to do so, forcing the Bush Administration to pursue a new strategy (ideally something along the lines of the McGovern plan).
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is more concerned with expanding her party's power than taking a principled stand that would save thousands of lives and begin restoring this country's image in the eyes of the Muslim world. And none of the presidential candidates (except also-rans Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel) are offering plans for Iraq that will substantially reduce the long-term U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. That's a disgrace that is being compounded by the mainstream media and its campaign to disempower the average American and ensure that our imperial experiment continues unchecked and unquestioned.
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2007/09/democrats_can_end_the_war.html

[The Reverend]

What if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to present Congress with a bill to fund the criminal U.S. occupation of Iraq? The possibility of a Bush veto would not be an issue.

Although billions of dollars are still in the pipeline, President George W. Bush and the Pentagon, faced with a new political reality, would be forced to begin making plans for withdrawal.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi has full control over which pieces of legislation make it onto the floor for a vote. The Democratic Party majority in Congress could just sit on any war-spending bill and there would be no funds for the war.

Last November, when millions of people voted for Democratic Party politicians who claimed to be anti-war, this is exactly the kind of legislative action they expected them to take.

It is important to confront the direct fraud that the Democratic leaders, who control a majority in both houses of Congress, are putting forth as they prepare to fund the war. Ever since the election they have given endless excuses about how they lack the votes to do what they promised to do.

The Democrats claim that, because they do not have a two-thirds majority, they are powerless to overrule an expected Bush veto on a war-funding bill that would set a deadline for withdrawal. So they must pass a bill that Bush would approve.

But they could simply refuse to present a bill for ANY war funding.

They clearly have the constitutional authority, the legislative power and the political mandate.

One of Pelosi’s first acts as speaker of the House was to declare that impeachment proceedings against Bush were “off the table.” She would refuse to allow this burning issue to come to the floor of the House. Why not declare instead that war funding is “off the table”?

But it will take a massive, determined, angry and independent movement to force the Democratic majority in Congress to put impeachment on the table and take war funding off.
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/congress-0927/

[5stringJeff]

What if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to present Congress with a bill to fund the criminal U.S. occupation of Iraq? The possibility of a Bush veto would not be an issue.

Although billions of dollars are still in the pipeline, President George W. Bush and the Pentagon, faced with a new political reality, would be forced to begin making plans for withdrawal.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi has full control over which pieces of legislation make it onto the floor for a vote. The Democratic Party majority in Congress could just sit on any war-spending bill and there would be no funds for the war.

Last November, when millions of people voted for Democratic Party politicians who claimed to be anti-war, this is exactly the kind of legislative action they expected them to take.

It is important to confront the direct fraud that the Democratic leaders, who control a majority in both houses of Congress, are putting forth as they prepare to fund the war. Ever since the election they have given endless excuses about how they lack the votes to do what they promised to do.

The Democrats claim that, because they do not have a two-thirds majority, they are powerless to overrule an expected Bush veto on a war-funding bill that would set a deadline for withdrawal. So they must pass a bill that Bush would approve.

But they could simply refuse to present a bill for ANY war funding.

They clearly have the constitutional authority, the legislative power and the political mandate.

One of Pelosi’s first acts as speaker of the House was to declare that impeachment proceedings against Bush were “off the table.” She would refuse to allow this burning issue to come to the floor of the House. Why not declare instead that war funding is “off the table”?

But it will take a massive, determined, angry and independent movement to force the Democratic majority in Congress to put impeachment on the table and take war funding off.
http://www.workers.org/2007/us/congress-0927/

Now you're quoting the unabashedly Socialist Worker's World Party? :cuckoo:

It's really not quite that simple. Even if the Dems didn't pass a supplemental appropriation, we'd still have to pay to redeploy troops from Iraq, we'd still be on the hook for whatever money we spent up to the point that Bush was "forced" to withdraw troops, etc. If the Dems really wanted us out of Iraq, they'd revoke the AUMF passed in 2002. But they don't have the balls.