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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,297 posts, read 54,176,344 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
Why didn't the DEM CONTROLLED Senate kill the bill?
The Senate Majority Leader, a dem, CO-SPONSORED the bill as well as the dem House leader.
As we have seen with Ole' harry he can kill ANY bill he wants to.
I am glad to see that you support a leader who violated the treaty he signed, not being held accountable.
The bill gave permission to invade.
I'm sad to see you don't understand the difference between permission to and mandate to and completely miss the point that after the 9/11 attacks, focusing on finding/eliminating our attackers would likely have been much ebtter use of our resources than invading/occupying a country that did nothing to us.
Attacking terrorists where they live is not the same as a full scale invasion/occupation of a country that did nothing to us. Surely if we KNEW where these alleged terror training camps were being conducted in Iraq they could have been attacked without an invasion/occupation using air strikes, cruise missiles, etc.
As it is, with al Qaeda KNOWN to have been operating in more than 40 countries at the time and there being little evidence that Iraq contained a large portion if any of its activities, a full scale invasion/occupation hardly seems a wise or effective choice of action.
So do we wait for ISIS to attack us at home or take them out now? Bombing campaign Is not stopping them.
I'm not going to read all the replies. There is no "bombshell" here. No one ever argued Saddam never had chemical weapons. We know he did, we gave them to him when he was on our side. The truth is, he never was not on our side.
WMD is a problematic term. You can buy a brick of 5000 rounds of .22 lr for less than a thousand dollars, which would seem to qualify as WMD, but can you shoot 5000 souls with it? No, you will probably be shot yourself after the first.
But we are stuck with this terminology from our friends at the NYT, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, etc. They are so much more sophisticated than us, and they write the rules.
Actually no because first.. since your a bad guy and want to kill 5000 souls... just go to gun free zone and I am sure nobody will be shooting you for some time.
You might get off a few hundred.. until the cops show up with GUNS to kill you.
But hey dont we all feel safe in that gun free zone.
The public wanted war (84%). Congress knew it and they voted to approve the war.
The larger issue is why they were ordered to secrecy... and why others were sent to deal with the weapons and suffered harm.
The public, he said, was misled for a decade. “I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
One possible reason why the secrecy, might be if you find some buried munitions with mustard gas you do not want to advertise it, and have terroists finding more of them and turning them into IEDs. That is just a wild guess.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,297 posts, read 54,176,344 times
Reputation: 40623
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Those who gave permission argued for years that it should be done.
Why?
Ask them, it made no sense to me.
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.