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.
"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find."
Specifically, no. However, that and many other actions are INCLUDED in the bill under section 4(a)(2): The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
No, it bloody well isn't. That describes arming, educating and training Iraqi organizations, and nothing else. Section 8 makes it very, very clear that nothing else is allowed.
Quote:
Did the cost exceed the $97 million limit? Yes.
Ya think?
Quote:
That's where the vote of approval for the action in Congress comes into play.
That was an entirely different piece of legislation, you very ignorant person.
No, it bloody well isn't. That describes arming, educating and training Iraqi organizations, and nothing else. Section 8 makes it very, very clear that nothing else is allowed.
No, it does not. Again, you have to COMPREHEND the language to understand what it legally permits:
Section 4(a)(2): The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
Quote:
That was an entirely different piece of legislation, you very ignorant person.
Ignorant? No. What that legislation did was open the door to additional funding for CONGRESSIONALLY approved military action.
Why do you keep deluding yourself? Too emotionally involved in your position to comprehend actual facts?
Gotta love it when people can't just admit the party they follow ****ed up and try to spin it back on you. Regardless of what Clinton did, he wasn't involved in taking Saddam out of power. We had nothing to do with Egypt and Syria, so I don't know why you are mentioning those. As for Libya, you are correct. It was boneheaded to get involved when at the end of the day Gaddafi was effective.
"Nothing to do with Egypt and Syria?" Barack Obama was chief cheerleader for the Muslim Brotherhood , a terrorist organization, and their primary enabler. He orchestrated the removal of Mubarak, who had kept the peace for 30 years, and was generally friendly to the U.S.
Bush's folly was not that he wanted to do something about a WMD armed regime in Iraq, but that his strategy made no allowance for the shtstorm of radical Islam that moved up to fill the void there once Saddam was taken out.
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.
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.
