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.
Don't exepect the GWB defenders to read beyond the headlines. Hell, we have one arguing based on the name, not the content, of the "Iraqi Liberation Act". You think they read articles?
Begs the question why do you not understand the act states " that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq " and does nothing to mandate a full scale invasion/occupation?
You haven't read the following of the Iraq Liberation Act?
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.
If you don't like the outcome, why not hold the president who signed it into law (Clinton) accountable?
You haven't read the following of the Iraq Liberation Act?
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.
If you don't like the outcome, why not hold the president who signed it into law (Clinton) accountable?
That - is not an invasion. That is arming and training opposition groups. And you have (of course) omitted the subheading B of 4(a)(2) - hell, you even took time to edit out the (A) in your quote - and doctored quotes, by the way, is really bad form:
Quote:
(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.
In the fact-based world, the Iraqi Liberation Act is not a carte blanche for an invasion of Iraq, quite the opposite. Now you can claim it is, remove what little integrity you have left, and drop all pretense of arguing on basis of facts. Or you can man up to your mistake. Your call.
' In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words." '
The British government, by the way, never backed away from that assessment, thus Bush's infamous 16 words are as true now as when he spoke them.
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.
