So.... is Obama a war criminal yet?

its partisan drivel hair splitting nonsense to claim thte resolution wasn't for war....it was a resolution for war in all but name. congress also acted as if it was war, in all but name, continually funding the action etc, etc....it was politics at its finest to claim it wasn't a war.
 
bravo said:
Is it your contention that the use of military force is not war?....Really?....Do you have your own special definition of war, other than the 'normal' one....
Is this gonna take another 50 posts to teach you the definition of this 3 letter word.?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the contention.

Tell me when the following were referred to as wars:

April 1980 -- Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt

1982-1984 -- Beirut

October 1983 -- Invasion of Grenada, (Operation Urgent Fury)

April 1986 -- Raid on Tripoli, Libya

December, 1989 -- Invasion of Panama and Arrest of Manuel Noriega

1992-1993 -- Somalia

September 19, 1994 -- Invasion of Haiti

September 1995 -- Bosnia, (Operation Deliberate Force)

April 1999 -- (Operation Allied Force)
 
repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.
Click to expand...

this is onceler's desperate attempt to not admit he screwed up by claiming the report found bush's admin "manipulated" the intel regarding iraq war. assuming the above is true, it does not state bush knew the intel was unsubstantiated, contradicted or non-existent. let's say bush did know, relying on intel that may not be substantiated, is NOT a manipulation of intel. onceler seemingly doesn't understand what manipulation means, but it could be he does, however, he is so desperate to not admit he is wrong he furiously scoured the internet and came up with the weak quote above from wiki....

onceler will never give the actual source, nor give the full text so we can see the context. he cherry picks from wiki, but even that cherry pick doesn't support his claim that bush manipulated intel. instead, as shown by my link (dixie and bravo also copied relevant portions) showed that the bush admin did NOT manipulated intel. but onceler, in his weasel way, claims that because the report has some parts that are redacted, the report cannot be relied on. this is flat out dishonest because the parts not redacted clearly spell out in unambiguous languate that there was no manipulation of the intel. how onceler can ignore those express findings is beyond comprehension. FACT: bush did not alter any of the intel, nor did he or his admin coerce anyone into altering intel.

onceler should look up the definition of manipulation and save himself further embarrassment
 
christiefan915 said:
My contention is what started in 2003 in Iraq was a war.
Click to expand...

what? so what started in 2003 is a war, but the authorization did not authorize war, even though it did in fact authorize everything bush did.

LOL...you lefties and your hair splitting....military action does not mean war here, but, bush's military action did in fact constitute war....thats some hilarious spin christie
 
Onceler said:
You don't know what "repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated" means? Really? I'll explain it to you. It's like getting a PDB a few days before a state of the union saying that the ONE source you had for mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq, a spy named "Curveball," was deemed wholly unreliable, and then saying in that state of the union that "mulitple sources" had confirmed the presence of mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The committee found no evidence to support this allegation. This was one of several complaints made, they investigated, they interviewed people.... then they found that no evidence existed to substantiate the claim. Now you can run around claiming they did find evidence and this was proven to be factual, but that is a lie... something you have become very proficient at.

It's like giving your SOS a "chinese menu" of intel, and telling him to pick what would make the best case for war. That's what it means.
Click to expand...
What the fuck does that mean, and why do you keep repeating "chinese menu" as if that is something sinister? Basically, it means Powell was given a very extensive and detailed list of reasons we needed to take Saddam out. WoWWz! HE HAD A LOT OF REASONS! ZOMG! Since when is it a BAD thing to have a LOT of reasons to invade?

LOL at you're still trying to make the case for the Iraq/Al Qaeda "alliance." You need to read the 1st part of the investigation we're talking about. I'm glad you're admitting that the admin made no bones about creating the connection, though.
Click to expand...
I've read through EVERY part of BOTH parts, as well as every part of every report on Iraq. What I said was true, it was confirmed by all the investigations, and it was written in the very documents you are citing. They met with each other, the pictures don't lie! They could find no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with the planning of 9/11.... that was ALL they said! Nowhere do they state that Saddam and alQaeda had no connection. If you find such a statement in the official report, please post it here.... YOU CAN'T!

You know which "British" I'm talking about with "intel fixed around the policy." And you know about the Downing St. memo. And you know about Paul O'Neil (you know...the guy who was actually IN the Bush admin). You know about Paul Wolfowicz, and Richard Clarke, and Colin Powell's aide...all of whom said essentially the same thing. So, either they're all lying, or Bush is.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of pinheads got sweet book deals and made lots of quick money on book sales... a LOT of things were SAID... a LOT of things were ALLEGED! That's why they held a Senate investigation! All of this stuff was put on the table, all the allegations and claims were systematically gone through and examined.... the committee found NO EVIDENCE to substantiate the claims!

There really isn't any question whatsoever what happened in the lead-up to war. If you're determined to keep partisan blinders on regarding the facts, that's your choice, but it won't change history.
Click to expand...
You can't change history by claiming a bunch of unsubstantiated nonsense as FACT! Put up or shut up! Start posting the findings by the committee which support what you are claiming! So far, everything that spews out of your putrid mouth, is a goddamn lie! You just keep spewing them, so fast and furiously, you hope no one can catch them all! Is this going to be the new technique from liberals now?
 
Onceler said:
You know, lying is really an art form with you - I have to give you some credit on that. The use of military force is required for war, but does not always = war. How is that so hard to get? The authorization to use force in Iraq was "if necessary"....you KNOW that. You also know, if you read any statements from anyone in Congress - both R & D - on the day of the vote, that they fully expected President Bush to exhaust every option before even considering force, and not a one thought that the force that would be used "if necessary" equated to a full-scale invasion & occupation. Again, Dick Armey to this day says he was misled by the White House. That's Dick Armey - no screaming liberal, there.

Now, use all your skills to twist what I just said, and continue to keep your blinders on. Like I have said, it doesn't matter what you say here - history is written on this topic already, and you can't undo it. All you can do is continue to flail & distract in your non-stop effort to save Bush from accountability....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry sonny...the use of military force on or in a sovereign foreign nation constitutes WAR...whether you agree or not fuckin' relevant....you're not entitled to your own facts and definitions...

You keep on referring to those 2 words "if necessary" as it they have god-like meaning in the resolution....try this
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--

and that line, sonny, says it all....read it a few times until it penetrates your thick ape-like skull.....

You keep accusing me of lying, could you be specific and tell me what I've lied about...I'm on pins and needles waiting for this....no generalities now, be specific, the lie and you version of the truth....
 
The lie is that this was ever called the "Iraqi war resolution" in any official capacity.

This thread has really turned into a web version of "Bush apologists anonymous." I've spoken my peace, which is the truth & history of the matter. I'll leave you Bushies to work out your issues together on your own....
 
the only proven liar in this thread is onceler....who finally concedes defeat and retreats with his usual "bush lovers!!!!!!" remarks in order to try and deflect from his embarrassing comments and lies.
 
Onceler said:
That ain't the Congressional Record. Sorry 'bout that. One of us is calling it what it was, and one of us isn't.

Must apologize for Bush....must apologize for Bush.....
Click to expand...
So where does it say in this particular Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, that it is not authorize War...now make sure your answer is in the Congressional record....you pinhead.
 
Yurt said:
the only proven liar in this thread is onceler....who finally concedes defeat and retreats with his usual "bush lovers!!!!!!" remarks in order to try and deflect from his embarrassing comments and lies.
Click to expand...

Not at all. You & yours are the most intellectually dishonest group I can think of; you're on par w/ Dixie & bravs now, Yurt. You should give that some thought.

Everything I have laid out is accurate; I guess at least Dixie tried to address some of the facts, but in his usual Dixified way, by denying and saying that anyone can make up anything to sell a book. The Senate investigation, which you clearly didn't read though, is clear as day. The history of the Downing St. memo, Paul O'Neil. Powell's office, Clarke, Wolfowicz, et al. is in the books, and indisputable.

I won't be accused of retreating on this one. I have presented the facts over & over again, but you, bravs & Dixie are like energizer bunnies of Bush apologism.....
 
bravo said:
So where does it say in this particular Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, that it is not authorize War...now make sure your answer is in the Congressional record....you pinhead.
Click to expand...

i want to know where the authorization limited what bush could do with the military, in that, i have not read where in the authorization it did not give bush authority to do exactly what he did.....congress funding the war after the fact also tacitly shows that this was a war authoriztion in all but name. if ever congress were to officially give authorization for war, it would look identical to the above document, save for the word "war"
 
Yurt said:
i want to know where the authorization limited what bush could do with the military, in that, i have not read where in the authorization it did not give bush authority to do exactly what he did.....congress funding the war after the fact also tacitly shows that this was a war authoriztion in all but name. if ever congress were to officially give authorization for war, it would look identical to the above document, save for the word "war"
Click to expand...

Spot on w/ the bolded. Thanks for finally seeing the light....
 
Onceler said:
Spot on w/ the bolded. Thanks for finally seeing the light....
Click to expand...

i've said that from the beginning you dishonest hack. i love how you IGNORE the rest of the post and want to hang your hat on POLITICS of the moment. you're the kind of fool who would claim a killing is not a murder, but a killing, because someone claimed it was just a killing. you and your ilk want to ignore that it was an authorization for war, in everything but using the exact words because it wasn't politically prudent to do so. you want to call a duck a raccoon because your congressmen tell you the duck is a raccoon. you want to only believe words that fit your world view.

how pathetic and utterly dishoenst.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yes, that's the contention.

Tell me when the following were referred to as wars:

April 1980 -- Iran Hostage Rescue Attempt

1982-1984 -- Beirut

October 1983 -- Invasion of Grenada, (Operation Urgent Fury)

April 1986 -- Raid on Tripoli, Libya

December, 1989 -- Invasion of Panama and Arrest of Manuel Noriega

1992-1993 -- Somalia

September 19, 1994 -- Invasion of Haiti

September 1995 -- Bosnia, (Operation Deliberate Force)

April 1999 -- (Operation Allied Force)
Click to expand...
POST 86
​
So we can't refer to " Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" as the "Iraq War Resolution"....that seems to bother you, even though EVERY news organization and EVERY media outlet refers to it by that name.....

Am I to gather that , Authorization for Use of Military Force does not mean 'war' to you ?...Military Force isn't war?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry pinhead...you probably missed post 86....the topic being discussed is the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" commonly referred to as the "Iraq War Resolution"...and in particular the phase MILITARY FORCE as used in that bill supported by a bi-partisan majority of Congress.....

Try to keep up...
 
Onceler said:
Not at all. You & yours are the most intellectually dishonest group I can think of; you're on par w/ Dixie & bravs now, Yurt. You should give that some thought.

Everything I have laid out is accurate; I guess at least Dixie tried to address some of the facts, but in his usual Dixified way, by denying and saying that anyone can make up anything to sell a book. The Senate investigation, which you clearly didn't read though, is clear as day. The history of the Downing St. memo, Paul O'Neil. Powell's office, Clarke, Wolfowicz, et al. is in the books, and indisputable.

I won't be accused of retreating on this one. I have presented the facts over & over again, but you, bravs & Dixie are like energizer bunnies of Bush apologism.....
Click to expand...

coming from you, that is a compliment. you are without a doubt the biggest lying hack on the board. you got busted on cheney's claim of six months, and you got busted on your claim bush admin manipulated data. you went so far as to claim that because the report was redacted, you could not tell what their conclusion was, despite the fact they spelled out their conclusion in the non-redacted part and even used the word "conclusion" repeatedly....but oh no, in onceler's dishonest world, you could not tell what their conclusion was even after dixie c&c'd the exact wording.

no onceler, you have retreated and you have not presented facts over and over. you have cherry picked, you have NOT given links to actual reports, unlike myself, bravo and dixie who linked you to actual documents. its what you do, you make claims and then never back them up. your intellectual dishonesty has been conclusively proven repeatedly in this thread.
 
Yurt said:
i want to know where the authorization limited what bush could do with the military, in that, i have not read where in the authorization it did not give bush authority to do exactly what he did.....congress funding the war after the fact also tacitly shows that this was a war authoriztion in all but name. if ever congress were to officially give authorization for war, it would look identical to the above document, save for the word "war"
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
Spot on w/ the bolded. Thanks for finally seeing the light....
Click to expand...

Funny Onceler didn't correct you Yurt.... a war authoriztion in all but name ?

but it was a war authorization and its was so named.Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq ..military forces used against a foreign nation is war....there is no other definition for it....
 
Yurt said:
i've said that from the beginning you dishonest hack. i love how you IGNORE the rest of the post and want to hang your hat on POLITICS of the moment. you're the kind of fool who would claim a killing is not a murder, but a killing, because someone claimed it was just a killing. you and your ilk want to ignore that it was an authorization for war, in everything but using the exact words because it wasn't politically prudent to do so. you want to call a duck a raccoon because your congressmen tell you the duck is a raccoon. you want to only believe words that fit your world view.

how pathetic and utterly dishoenst.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of maineman...remember him?
He would agrue that if a man stabbed his wife to death, we couldn't say he committed murder because he wasn't tried and found guilty in a court of law......
I had a lot fun schooling his ass too and he was an icon for the lefties at the time...one of their big hitters...
 
bravo said:
This reminds me of maineman...remember him?
He would agrue that if a man stabbed his wife to death, we couldn't say he committed murder because he wasn't tried and found guilty in a court of law......
I had a lot fun schooling his ass too and he was an icon for the lefties at the time...one of their big hitters...
Click to expand...

LOL - what a great example to bring up w/ Yurt. I won't try explaining to you, but I'm sure Yurtsie remembers, right Yurtsie?

What a perfect thing to say right now. Thanks bravs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top