The first woman President

[Truth Detector]

I always read the platforms of both parties each and every election. As long as the democrat's platform more closely matches my beliefs than the republican platform does, I will vote for democrats.

Liar; you could care less what the Republican platform has in it other than to find something to moan and whine like a little baby about.

[maineman]

I have never said that the resolution itself contained the words, "last resort". I am saying that Hillary expressed her strongest wish that the president use the authority being given to him wisely and not to invade unless all other non-combat options had been exhausted. Clearly, the president did not do so.

And pointing out that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the resolution is not a lie in any way.

[maineman]

Liar; you could care less what the Republican platform has in it other than to find something to moan and whine like a little baby about.

you toss the word "liar" around a lot for someone who clearly has no idea what the word actually means.

And I don't moan or whine like a baby about anything... least of all the contents of political platforms. I read them. I chose the party I will support based upon their content. that's a fact.


It is also a fact that the democratic platform has, up until now, been the party that best captures my own political philosophy. If, in the years ahead, I became anti-gay, or pro-life, or anti-union or anti- progressive income tax, I suppose I would probably switch parties.... OR... if the democratic party changed ITS philosophies on key issues like that, I might also change.... but, to date, neither of those scenarios has materialized.

[Truth Detector]

I have never said that the resolution itself contained the words, "last resort". I am saying that Hillary expressed her strongest wish that the president use the authority being given to him wisely and not to invade unless all other non-combat options had been exhausted.

Can you provide some citations from Hillary herself instead of nothing more than “because you say so?”

Clearly, the president did not do so.

Clearly he did; but then facts have never been your forte’.

Time was all Saddam ever got; more than TEN years. After kicking out inspectors for most of the Clinton Presidency, he finally agreed to let them back in after troops were amassed on his borders.

But even then, he had another SEVEN months to totally comply and stop his obfuscations, he chose NOT to:

16 September 2002
Iraq said it would allow international weapons inspectors to return "without conditions." Inspectors will be governed by the timetable established in UN Security Council resolution 1284, which reorganized the inspections program in 1999. The UNMOVIC and the IAEA inspectors, not later than 60 days after they have both started work in Iraq, would report to the Security Council to lay out a work plan. After the work plan is adopted, UNMOVIC and IAEA have 120 days within which to make an initial report on whether Iraq is cooperating.

Early October 2002
The United States and Britain were drafting a United Nations resolution that would give Saddam Hussein about two months [that is, apparently until the end of November 2002] to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors and to make new efforts to comply with the resolutions that ended the Persian Gulf war. Under the resolution, inspectors would have broad new powers to hunt for suspected weapons of mass destruction, and have armed security while they conduct their search. If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage, or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes "all necessary means" to force compliance-in other words, a military attack.

10 October 2002
Congress adopted joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. 11 October with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

19 October 2002
Inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were prepared to return to Iraq as early as 19 October.

23 October 2002
The United States formally introduced a draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament to the UN Security Council.

08 November 2002
The UN Security Council adopted a revised US draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. Security Council Resolution 1441 contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions.

The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 08 November 2002 gave Iraq seven days, until 15 November, to accept the resolution. The resolution called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days, giving Iraq until 09 December 2002 to declare what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession. The resolution gave UN inspectors 45 days to resume their work in Iraq, or until 24 December 2002.

Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad would face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.

27 November 2002
UN officials say the first inspections inside Iraq should resume by 27 November, though the Security Council resolution requires that they start no later than 23 December.

07 December 2002
The resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on 08 November 2002 called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days. Iraq will declare on 07 December 2002 what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession.

27 January 2003
Since the initial UN inspections began on 27 November 2002, soon after the arrival of some inspectors, the inspectors are to report back to the Security Council by 27 January 2003. Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad would face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.

01 March 2003
UNMOVIC has reportedly ordered Iraq to destroy all of its Al Samoud 2 missiles and 380 rocket engines that were illegally imported by Saturday, March 1. This is also the date that a written report from UNMOVIC is due to the United Nations Security Council.

President Bush, during an address to the nation on March 17, gave a 48 hour deadline to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or else the United States and its coalition allies will initiate a military action against the Iraqi regime. The deadline for Hussein to enter exile would be 8:00 PM EST on March 19, by this time nearly all of the final preparations would be completed.

19 March 2003
Military operations against Iraq began at around 9:30 PM EST on March 19.

And pointing out that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the resolution is not a lie in any way.

Continually pointing it out is not a lie; it is just a worthless exercise in futility with dishonest intent; something you do a LOT of.

[Celticguy]

you toss the word "liar" around a lot for someone who clearly has no idea what the word actually means.

And I don't moan or whine like a baby about anything... least of all the contents of political platforms. I read them. I chose the party I will support based upon their content. that's a fact.


It is also a fact that the democratic platform has, up until now, been the party that best captures my own political philosophy. If, in the years ahead, I became anti-gay, or pro-life, or anti-union or anti- progressive income tax, I suppose I would probably switch parties.... OR... if the democratic party changed ITS philosophies on key issues like that, I might also change.... but, to date, neither of those scenarios has materialized.

You said you were a team player in no uncertain terms. I dont see how you can be both platform driven as well. Sute sounds like one statement cannot be true.

[Truth Detector]

you toss the word "liar" around a lot for someone who clearly has no idea what the word actually means.

That’s a lie; I don’t “toss the word around. I use it when dishonest hyper partisan dunces like you lie about the historic record and invent your own versions of events. Claiming I have no idea what the word actually means is a lie. I do know as clearly shown whenever I deal with dishonest hyper partisan repugnant assholes like you.

And I don't moan or whine like a baby about anything...

LMAO; another lie; see above shit-for-brains.

least of all the contents of political platforms. I read them. I chose the party I will support based upon their content. that's a fact.

LMAO; yeah Commander, you read what is in the Republican political platform because it just MIGHT change your loopy uninformed low information leftist opinions right? What a fucking liar of massive proportions; and the fascinating thing is you probably are too stupid to comprehend it.

It is also a fact that the democratic platform has, up until now, been the party that best captures my own political philosophy. If, in the years ahead, I became anti-gay, or pro-life, or anti-union or anti- progressive income tax, I suppose I would probably switch parties.... OR... if the democratic party changed ITS philosophies on key issues like that, I might also change.... but, to date, neither of those scenarios has materialized.

More anecdotal bullshit; you just love erupting with off topic nonsense like this don’t you shit-for-brains?

Here’s the truth; you’re a low information dunce who hurls stupid leftist meme’s like anti-gay at people who think marriage actually means what it has always meant and stupidly believes in Marxist propaganda like equality and fairness and foolishly, if not gullibly, believes that massive Government programs will result in fairness and equity regardless of the historic facts to the contrary.

You hypocritically and ironically only hold your naïve belief in Government if YOUR “deciders” are in power; in your loopy uninformed world, Government is only good when YOUR guys in charge. When the other guys take over, it suddenly is a bad thing.

You’re a Liberal who votes based on emotions rather than intelligence. You actually think that people are too stupid to make intelligent decisions on their own and therefore, need this BIG huge bureaucracy of well-meaning Liberals who care more than anyone else on the planet to make the “right” decisions for all of us. In other words, you’re a quasi-Marxist.

[Truth Detector]

You said you were a team player in no uncertain terms. I dont see how you can be both platform driven as well. Sute sounds like one statement cannot be true.

BINGO!!

[maineman]

You said you were a team player in no uncertain terms. I dont see how you can be both platform driven as well. Sute sounds like one statement cannot be true.

This really isn't rocket science.... let me try to explain it yet again:

I read the platforms of the two parties (teams)... I decide which party's (team's) platform best fits my own personal political philosophy. That is the team I play for.

Is that really so fucking difficult to comprehend?

[maineman]

Can you provide some citations from Hillary herself instead of nothing more than “because you say so?”

Certainly. Here is a link to Hillary's floor speech in advance of the vote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/0...to-invade-Iraq


"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."


Did Bush kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq in the days before the invasion?

Yes or no.

Were they finished with their work?

yes or no.

[Truth Detector]

Certainly. Here is a link to Hillary's floor speech in advance of the vote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/0...to-invade-Iraq

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."

Did Bush kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq in the days before the invasion?
Yes or no.

Were they finished with their work?
yes or no.

Date this speech was made: dated October 10, 2002. Now follow along closely below as we go through the seven months after that speech; there was NO rush.

Bush told the inspectors to leave when the ultimatum given to Saddam, who had ignored the UN for the entire Clinton Presidency, was refused by him.

Now maybe you think that Bush is evil and Saddam was good; and you may even naively think that if just given enough time, a despot like Saddam would come clean and be honest. We have seen how that is working with the Iranians.

But you do not have the freedom to re-invent history and pretend that Clinton wasn’t all-in with the invasion and in removing Saddam Hussein for the EXACT same reasons Bush was as evidenced by the speech you just linked and not get called on your dishonest bullshit.

So wallow in blissful denial all you wish; second guess all your wish; wring your wrinkled little hands all you wish; but spare us your hyper partisan bullshit version of history, your second guessing of events long past, your myopic hindsight and the equally stupid claim that the Joint Resolution didn’t mean what it meant or that Bush lied us into a war of choice.

10 October 2002
Congress adopted joint resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. The Republican-controlled House voted 296 to 133 to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime. The Democratic-run Senate followed at 1:15 a.m. 11 October with a vote of 77 to 23 for the measure.

19 October 2002
Inspectors from the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were prepared to return to Iraq as early as 19 October.

23 October 2002
The United States formally introduced a draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament to the UN Security Council.

08 November 2002
The UN Security Council adopted a revised US draft resolution on Iraqi disarmament. Security Council Resolution 1441 contains no hidden triggers and no automaticity with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions.

The resolution adopted by the Security Council on 08 November 2002 gave Iraq seven days, until 15 November, to accept the resolution. The resolution called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days, giving Iraq until 09 December 2002 to declare what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession. The resolution gave UN inspectors 45 days to resume their work in Iraq, or until 24 December 2002.

Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad would face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.

27 November 2002
UN officials say the first inspections inside Iraq should resume by 27 November, though the Security Council resolution requires that they start no later than 23 December.

07 December 2002
The resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on 08 November 2002 called on Iraq to declare its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles within 30 days. Iraq will declare on 07 December 2002 what weapons of mass destruction and related materials it has in its possession.

27 January 2003
Since the initial UN inspections began on 27 November 2002, soon after the arrival of some inspectors, the inspectors are to report back to the Security Council by 27 January 2003. Although the US would consult the Council if inspectors reported Iraq had failed to cooperate to discuss the consequences Baghdad would face, the US would not have to wait for UN approval before taking military action.

01 March 2003
UNMOVIC has reportedly ordered Iraq to destroy all of its Al Samoud 2 missiles and 380 rocket engines that were illegally imported by Saturday, March 1. This is also the date that a written report from UNMOVIC is due to the United Nations Security Council.

President Bush, during an address to the nation on March 17, gave a 48 hour deadline to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or else the United States and its coalition allies will initiate a military action against the Iraqi regime. The deadline for Hussein to enter exile would be 8:00 PM EST on March 19, by this time nearly all of the final preparations would be completed.

19 March 2003
Military operations against Iraq began at around 9:30 PM EST on March 19.

[Truth Detector]

This really isn't rocket science.... let me try to explain it yet again:

I read the platforms of the two parties (teams)... I decide which party's (team's) platform best fits my own personal political philosophy. That is the team I play for.

Is that really so fucking difficult to comprehend?

It's not rocket science or hard to comprehend; you're full of shit. Hell, when you engage in a thread I usually have to get the hip waders on the bullshit you erupt with gets so deep.

[maineman]

Inspectors were onsite inspecting... it had been a diplomatic victory for Bush, which I applauded, to get them back in the first place. You failed to answer two simple yes or no questions... let's try again:

Did Bush kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq in the days before the invasion?
Yes or no.

Were they finished with their work?
yes or no.

Despite all the bullshit verbiage in the resolution, Bush himself told us what our primary mission was: disarming Saddam. The inspectors, if allowed to complete their task, would have told us what we now painfully know, that Saddam did not have any stockpiles of WMD's to disarm him of. If we had waited until Blix and Co. had finished their work, we would have known that, and the primary mission would have been "accomplished" without invading.

AND.... if Bush did not let the inspectors finish their work, he did, in fact, invade prior to it being the "last resort". fact.

[maineman]

It's not rocket science or hard to comprehend; you're full of shit. Hell, when you engage in a thread I usually have to get the hip waders on the bullshit you erupt with gets so deep.

just because you don't happen to want to believe that I do read party platforms does not mean that I don't. As I have said all my life, when the democratic party leaves MY political philosophy behind and adopts a new one, or if I happen to adopt a new one and they don't... I will no longer play for their team. Fact.

[Mike Oxawopper]

I mean they voted for the first negro President and that didn't work out so great.

Yes because things would have so much better with the 1/2 gov and the senile old fuck? Honestly you chicken little righties are hilarious.