Ted Kennedy, Still an embarresment to the country even in death

Phanes said:
I wasn't aware that PNAC had legislative or executive powers back in 1998.
Click to expand...

During a Democratic administration? Nothing strange about that.

"The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][20]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[21] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[22][23][24][25]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
 
christiefan915 said:
During a Democratic administration? Nothing strange about that.

"The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][20]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[21] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[22][23][24][25]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Click to expand...

Did Hillary Clinton and John Kerry vote for the invasion of Iraq?
 
christiefan915 said:
During a Democratic administration? Nothing strange about that.

"The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:

...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.[4][20]

From 2001 through 2002, the co-founders and other members of the PNAC published articles supporting the United States' invasion of Iraq.[21] On its website, the PNAC promoted its point of view that leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism."[22][23][24][25]

In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC had seven full-time staff members in addition to its board of directors.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Click to expand...


Whats your point ?.....Its was the OFFICIAL POLICY of the Clinton Admin. and the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq as far back as 1998.....long before Bush.


The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-0[/SUP][SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-1[/SUP] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.
 
christiefan915 said:
I disagree. But even if I didn't you have only George H.W. Bush to blame for that.
Click to expand...

You can't disagree with the truth. There was never a surrender, but only a conditional cease fire with UN oversight. What do you think all the UN resolutions over the intervening years was about. You are possibly in over your head.
 
christiefan915 said:
<sigh> We've been through that already. Why are you so reluctant to discuss the PNAC?
Click to expand...

PNAC means nothing. Dems didn't vote for the Iraq war because of Bush lies. That's just silly and astoundingly weak. This is supposed to be an adult political forum.
 
bravo said:
Whats your point ?.....Its was the OFFICIAL POLICY of the Clinton Admin. and the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq as far back as 1998.....long before Bush.


The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-0[/SUP][SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act#cite_note-1[/SUP] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq.
Click to expand...

Okay, here's the link. Where does it say anything about the US sending troops to remove Saddam from power? It says the purpose of the act is To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
 
Onceler said:
Semantics...really? So, you think the characterization, "resolution to invade," is apt?

You think when the Congressmen & women went to the floor that day, they said, "if we vote yes, we're voting to invade"?
Click to expand...


The characterization, "resolution to invade," is NOT apt.....there is no reason, no justification for anyone to change the facts as they happened.....

Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ............


Is there something in the above "official words of the voted on legislation" that you actually don't understand ?

There is no justification to add words to or take words away from the truth to suit your warped version of events....if won't make you correct....
 
christiefan915 said:
Okay, here's the link. Where does it say anything about the US sending troops to remove Saddam from power? It says the purpose of the act is To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.


Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Click to expand...


Where does it say that 'sending troops, establish a no fly zone, support an insurgency, arm Saddams enemys, etc. to remove him from power is prohibited ?
 
Alias said:
You can't disagree with the truth. There was never a surrender, but only a conditional cease fire with UN oversight. What do you think all the UN resolutions over the intervening years was about. You are possibly in over your head.
Click to expand...

Why didn't GHWB call for a surrender? Why did GHWB state "that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq."[62]

Your attempt to intimidate me is weak and transparent.
 
Alias said:
The Dems voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq and to remove Saddam. I understand you and others don't like that. Too bad. History.

Here's another news flash for ya.......It was a Democrat President who dropped the first atomic bombs on innocent civilians. That may upset you also, but it's also a historical fact.

As far as an "illegal war", we have Libya by Obama without any congressional approval or UN vote. Explain that one too us.

Playing partisan politics with war is not going to get you very far.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. Dropping the bomb was a criminal act - one which can never be forgiven.

See, I'm not a koolaid sucking apologist hack like you & bravo. I have no reason to protect a politician just because they're a "Democrat."

But, for whatever reason, you're both eternally loyal to Bush, and feel some sort of need to absolve him of accountability for his invasion of Iraq. Weird.
 
Alias said:
PNAC means nothing. Dems didn't vote for the Iraq war because of Bush lies. That's just silly and astoundingly weak. This is supposed to be an adult political forum.
Click to expand...

bush's strings were being pulled by the PNAC. You can't dispute that so you're resorting to ad homs. Perhaps you should school yourself in looking at the big picture instead of fixating on discrete, unconnected statements.
 
christiefan915 said:
bush's strings were being pulled by the PNAC. You can't dispute that so you're resorting to ad homs. Perhaps you should school yourself in looking at the big picture instead of fixating on discrete, unconnected statements.
Click to expand...

PNAC was the architect of the Iraq War. Paul Wolfowicz even said PUBLICLY that they "decided" on WMD's as the best way to "sell" the war to the public.

And still these idiots apologize.
 
Alias said:
The Dems voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq and to remove Saddam. I understand you and others don't like that. Too bad. History.

Here's another news flash for ya.......It was a Democrat President who dropped the first atomic bombs on innocent civilians. That may upset you also, but it's also a historical fact.

As far as an "illegal war", we have Libya by Obama without any congressional approval or UN vote. Explain that one too us.

Playing partisan politics with war is not going to get you very far.
Click to expand...

Many of the righties on this forum supported dropping the bomb. Did you?
 
christiefan915 said:
Why didn't GHWB call for a surrender? Why did GHWB state "that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq."[62]

Your attempt to intimidate me is weak and transparent.
Click to expand...

LOL...no one is trying to intimidate you. I'm just posting the facts. There was never a surrender in the 1991 war, only a conditional cease fire. Saddam made an agreement to a conditional cease fire. Perhaps you forgot that or just didn't know it. You need to have actual knowledge here, not talking points from partisan lefty sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top