kallend 2,027 #351 September 7, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Even more telling is he felt this way in 1998 and didn't act on it. What was he waiting for? Good intel? He certainly wasn't going to get it from the assets he had gutted. Iraq was well contained under Clinton. Using flaky intelligence to justify no-fly zones and sanctions is one thing. Using flaky intel to go to war, spend $Trillions, and kill +4000 American troops is quite another. And we now KNOW the intel was flaky, and we know the White House knew at the time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #352 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote The vote would not have passed if WE as a nation didn't want it to. Completely agree Quote Apparently you STILL haven't read the actual wording of the resolution. Yes, I've read the resolution. The one short titled "This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'" Right - and it left the decision to the CinC to use force if all else failed! And all else had NOT failed, because the UNSCOM was still providing reports of compliance until Bush told them to leave. The Congress didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress gave no orders to the Pentagon. Yes. It was Bush's decision. I haven't claimed different. However you want to interpret when diplomatic attemps failed, congress still approved the use of miliary force. That can't be argued otherwise. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #353 September 8, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote The vote would not have passed if WE as a nation didn't want it to. Completely agree Quote Apparently you STILL haven't read the actual wording of the resolution. Yes, I've read the resolution. The one short titled "This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'" Right - and it left the decision to the CinC to use force if all else failed! And all else had NOT failed, because the UNSCOM was still providing reports of compliance until Bush told them to leave. The Congress didn't vote to invade Iraq. The Congress gave no orders to the Pentagon. Yes. It was Bush's decision. I haven't claimed different. However you want to interpret when diplomatic attemps failed, congress still approved the use of miliary force. That can't be argued otherwise. Well, there's the rub. If UNSCOM had reported non compliance, there would have been a case. However, UNSCOM was unceremoniusly asked to leave BY BUSH before finishing its job, and UNSCOM's final report before being turfed out stated that Iraq was largely in compliance and cooperating.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #354 September 8, 2008 after 9-10 years i guess Bush thought diplomacy wasn't working. Between 1992 & 2002 everthing unscom tried was blocked or delayed by Sadam. Sadam did everything in his power to not follow what he was supposed to. talk can only go so far and most of us (congress and the people) were tired of talk and wanted action. Bush did what the popular vote & congressional vote wanted. there are mistakes from both sides and WE put ourselves in the position WE are in and now it is time to pay for those decissions. Is the price high? yes but very much worth it. I know that you personally didn't want the war but you were the minority and now have to help pay for that, but that is the price of living here in the US. There has been things that I have not liked or wanted but the good is greater than the bad. If Obama gets elected I will have to deal with his tax increases and mistakes just like I had to deal with Clintons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #355 September 8, 2008 QuoteBut, he could not have gone through with it if 100% of dems voted no. Didn't the GOP have a majority in both branches of Congress in 2003? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #356 September 8, 2008 Quote However you want to interpret when diplomatic attemps failed, congress still approved authorized the use of miliary force. That can't be argued otherwise. Yeah, yeah...it's just semantics. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #357 September 9, 2008 Quote Quote However you want to interpret when diplomatic attemps failed, congress still approved authorized the use of miliary force IF diplomatic efforts failed. That can't be argued otherwise. Yeah, yeah...it's just semantics. Blues, Dave Details!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #358 September 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut, he could not have gone through with it if 100% of dems voted no. Didn't the GOP have a majority in both branches of Congress in 2003? But not 60 Senators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #359 September 9, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBut, he could not have gone through with it if 100% of dems voted no. Didn't the GOP have a majority in both branches of Congress in 2003? But not 60 Senators. 110th Congress (2007-2009) Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) Minority Party: Republican (49 seats) Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat Total Seats: 100 Note: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an Independent, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
