Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
For the sake of discussion, how about you point out what you think he re-wrote. Because I am pretty sure he is correct in that the Arab league put a preemptive kabosh on any idea of removing Saddam back in 91.
Thats how it's done!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
For the sake of discussion, how about you point out what you think he re-wrote. Because I am pretty sure he is correct in that the Arab league put a preemptive kabosh on any idea of removing Saddam back in 91.
I missed the part where you were able to state how this attack is fundamentally different than other nation-building attacks we've gotten into that you didn't support because of a trailing R after a name. Is this the part where I would say "Chickenhawk" were our party roles reversed?
I'm talking about the "Iraqi War Resolution."
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Thanks for being so forthcoming.... AND????
AND....it was not a "war" resolution. Bravo depicts it over & over again as basically a declaration of war. Please say that you agree with that, so I can once & for all classify you in the group of non-thinking right-wing hacks whose sole duty on the board is to protect Bush from any accountability whatsoever.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No.... it was not a declaration of War... I was confused as to which quote you were telling him he re-wrote and when you clarified that, I then asked you for further clarification as to WHAT in the post you were objecting to given that you didn't state it. Given the fact that the bulk of what he posted is correct you should have specified where you had a problem. Which is why I asked for clarification to avoid confusion and have you run off into a hissy fit about 'non-thinking blah blah blah'
That said, I am missing where he said it was a declaration of war. He called it the 'Iraq War resolution' which is not its formal name, but it has been called that.
It has been called that, either as a lie or mistake. It was not a "war resolution."
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/...ons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/jt_resolution.htm
http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/02/revisiting_the_/
Bottom line, he is hardly the only one calling it that. The above shows a CNN article with that title, plus one written by Feingold calling it that, plus a left wing site calling it that. Thus, you can't say it is just a 'right wing' thing if someone calls it that.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No.... it was called that to avoid having to type.... "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"
It wasn't a fucking war resolution.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Oh.... so now that CNN, a Democratic Senator and a left wing site ALL USE THE EXACT SAME TERMINOLOGY.... you are going to throw a fit, because you were bashing on Bravo for something both right AND LEFT wing people did and now you are embarrassed?
I thought you were more of a grown up and could admit your mistake. Apparently I was quite wrong. I guess that means we should lump you in with the other left wing nuts.... Jarod 2.0? Desh 4.1? Nigel 6.66? What version would you prefer we refer to you as henceforth?
Fuck off. The history of it is that it is NOT and never was a fucking WAR RESOLUTION.
That's 100% fact.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO.... like I said, you were wrong. He was not 're-writing' history. He was calling it by a name that others had in the past. you are just 100% embarrassed and THAT is 100% FACT.
Was it a war resolution?
And answer with a complete sentence. If you think it was, write something like "Yes, it was a war resolution."
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh boy! I love slicing and dicing a christie quote!
Much like we knew about Qadaffy long before? Much like we've been 'buddies' with him all these years?
I guess you think the rationale for war, be it preempting people being massively destroyed with weapons, or regime change, is legitimate in Libya?
The same exact same thing Obama is saying about Qadaffy now, when we have the opportunity to remove him?
You mean, the planting of democracy in the heart of the Arab world actually caused an uprising from the people demanding liberty and freedom across the rest of the Arab world? Yes, that did happen to come true, just like Bush said it would, and we believed it might. But we won't rub that in right now, there is still a lot of work left to do, the radical jihadists aren't going away that easily.
Much like we knew about Qadaffy long before? Much like we've been 'buddies' with him all these years?
I guess you think the rationale for war, be it preempting people being massively destroyed with weapons, or regime change, is legitimate in Libya?
The same exact same thing Obama is saying about Qadaffy now, when we have the opportunity to remove him?
You mean, the planting of democracy in the heart of the Arab world actually caused an uprising from the people demanding liberty and freedom across the rest of the Arab world? Yes, that did happen to come true, just like Bush said it would, and we believed it might. But we won't rub that in right now, there is still a lot of work left to do, the radical jihadists aren't going away that easily.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
As I stated, it was not a declaration of War. As I stated, you are wrong to accuse him of re-writing history. As I stated, many used that phrase to refer to the resolution authorizing force. As I stated, you have your panties in a great big bunch right now.
Now, do you argue that others also called it the 'Iraq War Resolution'?
If you are finally able to admit you were wrong in accusing him, perhaps you can actually man up and apologize for such. OR you could highlight what else you thought he was 're-writing'.
Try to answer with complete sentences.
christiefan915
Catalyst
You know I try to write clearly, and give people the benefit of the doubt when they question some of my posts, but sometimes I wonder if English is your first language. It's like you and bravo deliberately misinterpret what I post, just to give yourselves the opportunity to slam.
My post wasn't about Clinton or bush43, it was about the fact the GHWB said he could have taken out Saddam, but didn't. What part of that didn't penetrate your pea brains?
Knew you couldn't answer it. Why should I answer in a complete sentence, when you didn't? Fool.
Fuck CNN, and fuck bravo, and fuck you, and fuck anyone else who repeats the entirely inaccurate "war resolution." It was not a "war resolution." Period.
If you believe it was, argue that on its merits - not what a bunch of parrots have repeated after years of misinformation. It was not a war resolution. Again, that is 100% fact.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO.... so CNN and a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR.... were spouting right wing parrot points?
I should have known you were a dishonest hack.
Can't argue it on its merits, eh?
Didn't think so. Because it wasn't a war resolution. You know it, and I know it.
You're the hack here, unless you can argue it on its merits. Good luck....