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

PostmodernProphet said:
Dick Armey argues that the folks voting for the authorization of use of force in Iraq didn't contemplate an invasion at the time?......I doubt he argued it, and if he did, I doubt it's true.....
Click to expand...

Well, if there is one thing you've made abundantly clear - over & over again - it's that you don't know shite about history....
 
Onceler said:
The righties are such liars.

I'm tellin' ya - in 10 years or so, we'll be arguing with them about the "fact" that Bush fought like hell not to go to war, but was pushed by Congressional Dems....
Click to expand...

More Senate Dems voted to invade Iraq than voted not to. Suck on that.
 
Onceler said:
Well, if there is one thing you've made abundantly clear - over & over again - it's that you don't know shite about history....
Click to expand...

Oh, cut the crap. All you have is word games and semantics. You can't use those for an actual debate. You should pick your fights better. When you go defending a lie you better make sure ahead of time that your opponents are dumber than you.
 
Alias said:
What did they vote for?
Click to expand...

To give Bush the authority to use force if necessary. Most of the legislators who voted for it talked about selective airstrikes, and only if all diplomatic solutions were exhausted (as many had indicated the WH assured them).

They didn't "vote to invade." That's a ridiculous, Bush-apologist lie.
 
Why can't you idiots deal with the fact that your hero Bush made one of the worst foreign-policy decisions in modern American history?

Just deal with it. This is embarassing apologism.
 
Onceler said:
To give Bush the authority to use force if necessary. Most of the legislators who voted for it talked about selective airstrikes, and only if all diplomatic solutions were exhausted (as many had indicated the WH assured them).

They didn't "vote to invade." That's a ridiculous, Bush-apologist lie.
Click to expand...

Why would you vote to authorize force and then cry and moan when it's used? Are you fucking stupid?
 
bravo said:
Too tough a question for onecell and dunedrop ????
Click to expand...

I've answered that about a gazillion times, old timer. You just can't read.

The vote was more to force Saddam's hand on inspections. It wasn't a vote to "take him out," or "to invade" (you guys can't even get your apologist stories straight anymore).
 
Onceler said:
To give Bush the authority to use force if necessary. Most of the legislators who voted for it talked about selective airstrikes, and only if all diplomatic solutions were exhausted (as many had indicated the WH assured them).

They didn't "vote to invade." That's a ridiculous, Bush-apologist lie.
Click to expand...

Lets just stick with the answer and not your childish version.....here is the pertinent part of the resolution you're not familiar with....IN RED

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

Don't come crying like a child with the "I didn't know what I voted for" bullshit....
Or the "I thought he would just call Saddam bad names" or some such bullshit....

The Congress, Republicans and DEMOCRATS both, voted to support Bushs lead as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...PERIOD, END OF STORY.
THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT AND NO PUSSY, ADOLESCENT CRYING EXCUSES FOR THE VOTE WILL CHANGE THESE FACTS....

They read the resolution, I read the resolution and YOU SHOULD READ THE RESOLUTION....it says nothing about about selective air strikes. It places no limits on Bush whatsoever....and rumors of invasion with ground forces were common knowledge in Washington.
They knew exactly what they were voting for and those that claim otherwise, are irresponsible liars and/or unfit to be in the Congress of the US....
\
So they did vote to invade, to bomb, to attack with missiles, tanks, firecrackers, stones, bricks, bb guns, forks, knives, or whatever Bush thought necessary.


 
bravo said:
Lets just stick with the answer and not your childish version.....here is the pertinent part of the resolution you're not familiar with....IN RED

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .

Don't come crying like a child with the "I didn't know what I voted for" bullshit....
Or the "I thought he would just call Saddam bad names" or some such bullshit....

The Congress, Republicans and DEMOCRATS both, voted to support Bushs lead as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...PERIOD, END OF STORY.
THAT IS HISTORICAL FACT AND NO PUSSY, ADOLESCENT CRYING EXCUSES FOR THE VOTE WILL CHANGE THESE FACTS....

They read the resolution, I read the resolution and YOU SHOULD READ THE RESOLUTION....it says nothing about about selective air strikes. It places no limits on Bush whatsoever....and rumors of invasion with ground forces were common knowledge in Washington.
They knew exactly what they were voting for and those that claim otherwise, are irresponsible liars and/or unfit to be in the Congress of the US....
\
So they did vote to invade, to bomb, to attack with missiles, tanks, firecrackers, stones, bricks, bb guns, forks, knives, or whatever Bush thought necessary.
Click to expand...


Did the US congress vote to invade Iraq or to give President Bush permission to use force?

Permission to use force.... the problem that many on the Right seem to selectively overlook is that 90% of those congressional members that approved this force, never thought in 100 years Bush would do it unilaterally. They assumed he would work with the United Nations on it and not just ignore their advice.

Yes there is a difference... Congress voting to invade a country is a congressional declaration of war. They do have that power but haven't actually used it since WW2.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld also lied through their teeth about the actual threat. The US fell for the Gulf of Tonkin lies a generation before and fell for the lies over Iraq.
 
Last edited:
poet said:
Only because "he lied".
Click to expand...

Yep. As in:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

and:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

To name a couple of those lies.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Did the US congress vote to invade Iraq or to give President Bush permission to use force?

Permission to use force.... the problem that many on the Right seem to selectively overlook is that 90% of those congressional members that approved this force, never thought in 100 years Bush would do it unilaterally. They assumed he would work with the United Nations on it and not just ignore their advice.

Yes there is a difference... Congress voting to invade a country is a congressional declaration of war. They do have that power but haven't actually used it since WW2.
Click to expand...

How many times must I answer the same question....?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
Click to expand...
They read the resolution, I read the resolution and YOU SHOULD READ THE RESOLUTION....it says nothing about about selective air strikes. It places no limits on Bush whatsoever....and rumors of invasion with ground forces were common knowledge in Washington.

They knew exactly what they were voting for and those that claim otherwise, are irresponsible liars and/or unfit to be in the Congress of the US....
\
So they did vote to invade, to bomb, to attack with missiles, tanks, firecrackers, stones, bricks, bb guns, forks, knives, or whatever Bush thought necessary.
 
bravo said:
How many times must I answer the same question....?

They read the resolution, I read the resolution and YOU SHOULD READ THE RESOLUTION....it says nothing about about selective air strikes. It places no limits on Bush whatsoever....and rumors of invasion with ground forces were common knowledge in Washington.

They knew exactly what they were voting for and those that claim otherwise, are irresponsible liars and/or unfit to be in the Congress of the US....
\
So they did vote to invade, to bomb, to attack with missiles, tanks, firecrackers, stones, bricks, bb guns, forks, knives, or whatever Bush thought necessary.
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

So why did Bush ignore the evidence from Scott Ritter and Hans Blix? Quite simply because he had made a decision to go to war in 2002 and then decided to unleash a propaganda war against the UN inspectors.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yep. As in:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

and:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

To name a couple of those lies.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm
Click to expand...


No shit sweetlips.....what we know NOW and what we thought to be the facts THEN are 2 different things.....and your post is irrelevant anyway....but to humor you.....

Example...
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

NOW we know that Iraq had no WMD programs in 1998....were Levin, Daschel, Kerry and others Democrats lying when they made this claim ???
Of course the were not lying, they were just wrong.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top