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.
Indeed, he was. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, specifically calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
So - are we to take you have modified your stance from post #85, where you claimed that section 4(a)(2) of the Iraq Liberation Act allowed for an invasion of Iraq?
So - are we to take you have modified your stance from post #85, where you claimed that section 4(2)(a) of the Iraq Liberation Act allowed for an invasion of Iraq?
I only stated it gave Bush the legal ability to do so. However, because unlike Obama, Bush was actually a consensus builder and believed Congress had a role in federal government matters, the issue was presented to Congress with all known Clinton-era and Bush-era intel, and Congress approved the subsequent action.
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
* The “Polish 17″ chemical weapons — definitely WMDs.
The Mosul Chem Lab — inconclusive, straining credulity that none of Saddam’s chemical weapons ever passed though there.
The Sarin Shell — definitely a WMD.
The Mustard Shell — not a WMD itself, but indicative of hundreds of shells known to be unaccounted for and later found to be 75% filled and usable WMDs.
Seriously, read that again. "The" Sarin Shell, "the" Mustard Shell. You're reduced to counting individual shells to bolster your case.
We were told there was an immediate threat, we were told we couldn't wait for the inspectors to do the job, because "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud over one of our cities", and that weak-sauce list is what we ended up with?
ETA: The correct quote is "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud". Mea culpa.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 10-16-2014 at 08:13 AM..
So - are we to take you have modified your stance from post #85, where you claimed that section 4(a)(2) of the Iraq Liberation Act allowed for an invasion of Iraq?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I only stated it gave Bush the legal ability to do so.
And you were demonstrably wrong, as the bill doesn't mention invasion at all and, in fact, very specifically rules out any sort of mission creep. It allows for a modest program to arm insurgents. $97 million?
Full text of 4(a) and Section 8, to refresh your memory:
Quote:
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) 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.
(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
Quote:
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
Your username is taking on a seriously ironic twist at this time. Or do you feel that the word "Nothing" in Section 8 is open to interpretation?
And you were demonstrably wrong, as the bill doesn't mention invasion at all
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.
Did the cost exceed the $97 million limit? Yes. That's where the vote of approval for the action in Congress comes into play. Too bad so many Dems believed Clinton's lies about Iraq's WMDs and voted "yea."
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.
