So.... is Obama a war criminal yet?
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
"Iraq War Resolution" was not the title of the legislation in Congress, nor the intent. If you want to argue that Congress was naive to think it wouldn't lead to war, have at it, and you won't get much argument from me; but it was not a "War resolution." That is completely dishonest. It is only referred to as such NOW and after 2003, because Bush did use it to start the war, against his promises to Congress to exhaust ever option before resorting to the use of force (which, as you know, MANY in Congress, including R's like Dick Armey, thought would be something more along the lines of limited airstrikes, and said as much on the day of the vote).
The vote was intended as a show of unity to Saddam to force his hand on inspections. It worked; as of early 2003, inspectors had access to all suspected WMD sites. But Bush started the war anyway, and now you have to spend the rest of your days trying to rewrite history to protect him.
BY EVERYONE WITH AN IQ ABOVE 70...
Is this your admission that the document DOES EXIST ?...did you experience a tine burst of sanity in the last few minutes...?
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
H.J.Res.114
How about this...?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.J.RES.114:
From the Library of Congress
THOMAS
Bill Text Versions
107th Congress (2001-2002)
H.J.RES.114
THOMAS
Bill Text Versions
107th Congress (2001-2002)
H.J.RES.114
There are 5 versions of Bill Number H.J.RES.114 for the 107th Congress. Usually, the last item is the most recent.
1 . Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Introduced in House - IH)[H.J.RES.114.IH]
Lets keep it simple for awhile, just for you....
Finally, you did have a moment of clarity....
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?
and we haven't talked about it so how can I be lying about it ? It took this many posts to get you to admit it exists.
Your apologism is relentless, and somewhat wearying. Is it your contention that any use of miiltary force is "war"? Really?
And you're talking about IQ's above 70? Like I have said - you're an old guy. You're not getting those brain cells back. It wasn't a "war resolution," and never will be.
You can't seriously believe that the "intent" going into Iraq with a full scale armed force was not an act of war that was not only supported, but voted on by members of congress...oh wait- you're you~
Yeah - me & Dick Armey, 2 peas in a pod.
Do you guys take special classes on "rewriting history"? What gives?
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.?
Hold on....lets start small....he doesn't even know what the word war means...
Well it appears we need to to take some in order to understand retarded thinking such as yours as opposed to critical thinking in order to follow your idiot logic~
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....
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War.
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.....
You moronic shill-so, oncie, which part of the wiki account of what the authorization and its intent was, is incorrect?
LOL at you calling me the shill. As I have said, common parlance after the fact is to call it the "war resolution," because that's what Bush did with it, against what he promised Congress. He told members of Congress that he needed the authorization to hold against Saddam & force his hand, and assured them he would exhaust all options before resorting to force, if it came to that.
Now, by your portraying the resolution as some sort of war delclaration from the get go, you're basically saying that Bush lied to Congress when he told them that, and that it was intended for a full-scale war all along, no matter what the circumstances.
So, you decide on that one....
Post a link to Bush promising congress the Iraq Resolution was not war?
You are a shill-a stupid one, but a shill nonetheless.
The final bill authorizing Bush to use a military force against Iraq:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:4:./temp/~c107EQmCVb::
Last edited: