Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-17-2013, 01:18 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,406,295 times
Reputation: 4070

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
Lol....if you think there's something there that supports your interpretation, then say what it is.

I doubt it....but try and prove it.
I don't have to say, prove, or interpret anything. It's written in the resolution. Read it sometime when you get the opportunity.

Quote:
For the purposes of showing how Congress gives the President the authority and then defers the actual prosecution of the war to the Commander-In-Chief.....absolutely!

I note you didn't mention all those members of Congress that thought Bush was wrong at the time?
All those who voted against it. Of course, the GOP was in control of both houses of congress and the Republicans voted in almost unanimous lockstep for this Republican measure. If you're interested in the names, you can refer to your own link that you posted earlier.

Quote:
I mention 'at the time' because we all know how many attempted to re-write history after the war's popularity wained.
There was no history rewritten. The history is clear: Bush lied. Of course, he blames it on "faulty intelligence" but it's common knowledge that there was plenty of accurate intelligence against his case for war. That's the history. None of it has been altered.

"At the time" Bush, Cheney, and Rice had run a months-long campaign of disinformation to manufacture public support for their precious oil war. Congress was part of their audience, too. And their campaign did persuade a few Democrats to vote for the resolution. But many opposed it.

The war's popularity waned when it became obvious Bush, Cheney, and Rice had lied us into a stupid, unnecessary war that benefited the Saudi royal clan, Cheney's Halliburton, and a few other insiders at great expense to the public both in terms of lives and taxpayer funds squandered on an unwinnable quagmire. And had the ultimate effect of making Iran the predominant power in the region.

One need not be brilliant to grasp the depth of incompetence displayed by the Dubyites in this case.

Quote:
Posted with TapaTalk
Posted with a keyboard from my old fashioned desktop computer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:12 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,261,944 times
Reputation: 3554
This list should make it crystal clear who voted against the war, mind you that the republicans controlled both houses
[SIZE=4]Complete List of Who Voted NO in 2002 on Iraq War[/SIZE]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:16 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,290 posts, read 87,073,039 times
Reputation: 55549
It does not appear to matter what president is in the white house the war goes on
Obama promised an end he pulled out the army but replaced them with blackwater
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:20 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,824,713 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post
I guess that you were right since American oil companies were not there and did not make anything from the invasion, except how are they still there if they did'nt?

[SIZE=4]Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq - Features - Al Jazeera ...[/SIZE]


And forget these guys as well......

[SIZE=4]Iraq War Profiteers: 25 Companies Who Benefit From The War[/SIZE]

Btw, if you would read more closely as to the reson why America and it's allies did not get to claim all of Iraq because political reasons
[SIZE=4]Are American oil companies carving up Iraq after all?[/SIZE]
So you expect the US companies to NEVER obtain oil contracts, just to make you happy? Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:21 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,824,713 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoro View Post
No you don't.

Same as always.
One would have to be a complete fool to deny that the Iraq war invasion had bipartisan support.. Thats not really something I'd be bragging about to the rest of the world if I was you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:27 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 18,966,297 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
About 10 years ago, I didn't have much internet access to see arguments in the online political community. For those who did, how did conservatives defend GW after no WMDs were found in Iraq?
Ask the Clinton administration who started the talk of "weapons of mass destruction" back in 1996.

Ask the democrat leaders who also started the "WMD" talk in 1996.

Ask the democrats why most of them supported the war in 2001. (They did so because it was politically expedient at the time)

Ask Obama where Syria got the "WMD" that they used on their own people just this year.

It took 19 months of games by Iraq.....plenty of time to ship the "WMD" to Syria.....for our take down of saddam Hussein.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:29 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,271 posts, read 53,994,055 times
Reputation: 40551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
That is more than "justification" it is the inconvenient truth for liberals who hate President Bush and wish to slander the man who kept us safe.

Grow a conscience.
The inconvenient truth for those with blind faith in President Bush is that priorities should have changed on 9/11 yet Bush's remained the same, oust his personal bête noire while ignoring those who actually attacked us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,268,822 times
Reputation: 7990
Here's Al Gore excoriating HW Bush for being soft on Saddam over Saddam's WMD.
Al Gore on Iraq, Terrorism, and WMD - YouTube

Saddam had and used WMD against the Kurds and Iranians. He tried but failed to launch a WMD attack against Shiites in 1991.

Report Confirms Iraq Used Sarin in 1991 | Arms Control Association

Quote:
Technicians from the Muthanna State Establishment (MSE), Iraq’s primary chemical weapons research, development, and production facility, mixed sarin components in R-400 aerial bombs at the Tamuz air base on March 7. MI-8 helicopters from nearby bases were armed with the R-400s and flew sorties against Shiite rebels near Karbala. One account from a senior official suggests that the helicopters dropped 10-20 sarin-filled bombs, although another account suggests that the total may have been as high as 32.
The meme that there was no WMD will go down in history as the height of lefty lunacy, and that is saying something.

Emerson said that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but I don't think even Emerson would have been able to swallow this pig.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 07:14 PM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,261,944 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So you expect the US companies to NEVER obtain oil contracts, just to make you happy? Why?

The point is that is only ONE of the real reasons as to why the U.S went to war in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2013, 07:22 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,406,295 times
Reputation: 4070
Default Please see post #171 above

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
One would have to be a complete fool to deny that the Iraq war invasion had bipartisan support.. Thats not really something I'd be bragging about to the rest of the world if I was you.
One would have to be an utter imbecile to assert that the Iraq debacle was the responsibility of anyone other than Bush, Cheney, and Rice. It would be like arguing that congressmen and senators are the commanders in chief. Even Bush bootlickers know better than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top