Thats how it's done!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Yeah that's cuz he only used one of Bush's rationales, not both of them. Though it is not as if Gadhafi's WMD have not been talked about in recent news-or that thanks to Bush he began dismanteling them....
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Obama violated the constitution and the War Powers Act. How can you defend his actions?
Southern Chicken
Verified User
I am with you on this Oncelor but this is my reason
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rebel-commander-in-libya-fought-against-u-s-in-afghanistan/
"Now, however, al-Hasadi has admitted in an interview with the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore that he fought against American forces in Afghanistan. (Hat-tip: Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard.) Al-Hasadi says that he is the person responsible for the defense of Darnah — not the town’s “Emir.” In a previous interview with Canada’s Globe and Mail, he claimed to have a force of about 1,000 men and to have commanded rebel units in battles around the town of Bin Jawad.
“I have never been at Guantánamo,” al-Hasadi explained to Il Sole 24 Ore. “I was captured in 2002 in Peshawar in Pakistan, while I was returning from Afghanistan where I fought against the foreign invasion. I was turned over to the Americans, detained for a few months in Islamabad, then turned over to Libya and released from prison in 2008.”
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
why did we want regime change christie? because we believed saddam did NOT possess WMD's?
how is anyone on the right being dishonest?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
once again for the preemptive deniers....the above are obama's plain and unambiguous words declaring that the action was to PREVENT the PROSPECT of a massacre that COULD happen
christiefan915
Catalyst
Everything we knew about Saddam in 2003, we knew long before. Hell, we were buddies with him during the early 80s.
"The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism."
I guess you think that the rationale for that war, be it WMD or regime change, was legitimate.
Don't forget, we had the opportunity to remove Saddam in 1991 but as GHWB said:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
Everything he said then became true when his son invaded.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
talk about back peddling....you claimed it was a LIE that one of the reasons for going into iraq was regime change....yet you can't actually address that it was because we feared he had WMD's...
you're the one being dishonest christie....regime change has been the goal of the US government even during clinton's era....bush is simply the president that acted on it....to claim it had nothing to do with regime change is factually dishonest
Southern Chicken
Verified User
See link in post #65
Topspin
Verified User
Libya: al-Qaeda among Libya rebels, Nato chief fears
Libyan rebel forces may have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda fighters, a senior American military commander has warned.
By Robert Winnett, and Duncan Gardham 9:00PM BST 29 Mar 2011
Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said that American intelligence had picked up "flickers" of terrorist activity among the rebel groups. Senior British government figures described the comment as "very alarming".
The admission came as the American, Qatari and British Governments indicated that they were considering arming rebel groups, who yesterday suffered a series of setbacks in their advance along the Libyan coast towards Tripoli.
The plan is likely to spark further splits in the international coalition, with Nato and Italian sources indicating the move would require another United Nations resolution.
On Tuesday more than 40 ministers from around the world met at a conference in London to discuss the situation in Libya.
They agreed to establish formal links with opposition groups in the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi with several countries sending official envoys to the area. Libyan opposition leaders yesterday also travelled to Britain for talks with David Cameron and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.
Intelligence on Libyan opposition shows "flickers" of al-Qaeda, says top Nato commander
29 Mar 2011
Libya: woman claiming rape to face charges
29 Mar 2011
Britain and America signalled they would allow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to seek exile – rather than face a war crimes trial – if he agrees to step aside immediately.
However, the emerging plan being discussed for the political future of Libya was undermined by the growing military doubts over the make-up of the rebel groups.
"We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces," Admiral Stavridis said in testimony yesterday to the US Senate.
While the opposition's leadership appeared to be "responsible men and women" fighting the Gaddafi regime, Admiral Stavridis said, "we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hizbollah, we've seen different things."
"But at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence," he added.
The remarks are likely to be seized on by Col Gaddafi who has repeatedly claimed that the uprising is being driven by terrorists.
Last night a series of powerful explosions rocked Tripoli and state television said several targets in the Libyan capital had come under attack from "crusader aggressors". Tripoli residents said the latest explosions took place in the east of the capital but their exact location was not clear. Aircraft were heard above Tripoli earlier in the day.
Rebel forces retreated from attacks on Sirte after meeting heavy resistance in the town, Col Gaddafi's birthplace. The front line was reported to be near again to Bin Jawad, a town recaptured by rebels in recent days. There were also unconfirmed reports last night that the rebels were in trouble further back on the road heading east, around the oil town of Ras Lanuf.
Last night, Baroness Warsi, the Muslim cabinet minister and co-chairman of the Conservatives, said the comments about the composition of the rebel force were "very concerning".
"That is the first I'm hearing of the news, of course it is very concerning," she said. "What we've heard today is their [the Libyan Interim National Council's] version of a new Libya. I'm confident it is not a post-Gaddafi Libya that includes al-Qaeda."
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, sought to play down the concerns, welcoming a document from opposition leaders backing the creation of a free democracy in Libya. He said that there was a greater risk of terrorist threats if Britain and other countries did not intervene.
But, Mr Hague said: "We can never be complacent about the way events like this could turn out … Of course, there is a danger, if things go wrong in the region on a sustained basis, there could be opportunities for terrorism."
Mr Cameron accused the Gaddafi regime of launching "murderous attacks" on people in Misurata, Libya's third largest city.
Regime tanks surrounded the city and fired on apartment blocks in the city which was described as being "under siege". Snipers were also said to have taken rooftop positions to pick off rebel fighters.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said: "As this broad range of countries gathers here today in London, there are people suffering terribly under Gaddafi's rule. Our message to them is this: there are better days ahead for Libya."
It was announced that Nato is in the process of assuming command of the military operation and will be in full control by tomorrow. Several other countries also pledged to support the action.
Libyan rebel forces may have been infiltrated by al-Qaeda fighters, a senior American military commander has warned.
By Robert Winnett, and Duncan Gardham 9:00PM BST 29 Mar 2011
Admiral James Stavridis, Nato's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said that American intelligence had picked up "flickers" of terrorist activity among the rebel groups. Senior British government figures described the comment as "very alarming".
The admission came as the American, Qatari and British Governments indicated that they were considering arming rebel groups, who yesterday suffered a series of setbacks in their advance along the Libyan coast towards Tripoli.
The plan is likely to spark further splits in the international coalition, with Nato and Italian sources indicating the move would require another United Nations resolution.
On Tuesday more than 40 ministers from around the world met at a conference in London to discuss the situation in Libya.
They agreed to establish formal links with opposition groups in the rebel-stronghold of Benghazi with several countries sending official envoys to the area. Libyan opposition leaders yesterday also travelled to Britain for talks with David Cameron and Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State.
Intelligence on Libyan opposition shows "flickers" of al-Qaeda, says top Nato commander
29 Mar 2011
Libya: woman claiming rape to face charges
29 Mar 2011
Britain and America signalled they would allow Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to seek exile – rather than face a war crimes trial – if he agrees to step aside immediately.
However, the emerging plan being discussed for the political future of Libya was undermined by the growing military doubts over the make-up of the rebel groups.
"We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces," Admiral Stavridis said in testimony yesterday to the US Senate.
While the opposition's leadership appeared to be "responsible men and women" fighting the Gaddafi regime, Admiral Stavridis said, "we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hizbollah, we've seen different things."
"But at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al-Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence," he added.
The remarks are likely to be seized on by Col Gaddafi who has repeatedly claimed that the uprising is being driven by terrorists.
Last night a series of powerful explosions rocked Tripoli and state television said several targets in the Libyan capital had come under attack from "crusader aggressors". Tripoli residents said the latest explosions took place in the east of the capital but their exact location was not clear. Aircraft were heard above Tripoli earlier in the day.
Rebel forces retreated from attacks on Sirte after meeting heavy resistance in the town, Col Gaddafi's birthplace. The front line was reported to be near again to Bin Jawad, a town recaptured by rebels in recent days. There were also unconfirmed reports last night that the rebels were in trouble further back on the road heading east, around the oil town of Ras Lanuf.
Last night, Baroness Warsi, the Muslim cabinet minister and co-chairman of the Conservatives, said the comments about the composition of the rebel force were "very concerning".
"That is the first I'm hearing of the news, of course it is very concerning," she said. "What we've heard today is their [the Libyan Interim National Council's] version of a new Libya. I'm confident it is not a post-Gaddafi Libya that includes al-Qaeda."
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, sought to play down the concerns, welcoming a document from opposition leaders backing the creation of a free democracy in Libya. He said that there was a greater risk of terrorist threats if Britain and other countries did not intervene.
But, Mr Hague said: "We can never be complacent about the way events like this could turn out … Of course, there is a danger, if things go wrong in the region on a sustained basis, there could be opportunities for terrorism."
Mr Cameron accused the Gaddafi regime of launching "murderous attacks" on people in Misurata, Libya's third largest city.
Regime tanks surrounded the city and fired on apartment blocks in the city which was described as being "under siege". Snipers were also said to have taken rooftop positions to pick off rebel fighters.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said: "As this broad range of countries gathers here today in London, there are people suffering terribly under Gaddafi's rule. Our message to them is this: there are better days ahead for Libya."
It was announced that Nato is in the process of assuming command of the military operation and will be in full control by tomorrow. Several other countries also pledged to support the action.
It would really be beneficial to you pinheads to bone up on history and the facts rather than rely on the likes of Jon Steward, HuffingtonPost, DailyKOS, and MediaMatters for your talking points....
Just because you both keep repeating the lies of the left doesn't make it so....
The resolution cited factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
* Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
* Members of al-Qaeda, 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.
* Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
* The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
* The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
* Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Bullshit....there was a little matter of the AGREEMENT made by Bush with the coalition that was very plain from day one....the coalition ABSOLUTELY DID NOT AGREE TO GOING ANY FARTHER THAN EXPELLING SADDAM FROM KUWAIT....The coalition made it clear that occupying Baghdad was forbidden ....
I don't want you forget what happened, I want to educate you as to what actually happened.
You miss the point...I don't have to rewrite anything....all have to do is refer to history as told by sites other than the DNC approved sites....
I don't get my history from Jon Stewart, or Huffington, or the DailyKOS, or MediaMatters.....
The resolution says what it says...I don't have to change a word...its an official document of the United States, duly voted and on an approved by Congress....
Your version of history is what left wing internet sites tell you it is....thankfully, I can go right to the Thomas Record, or the Congressional Record, etc....
I don't get my history from any of the sources cited above. I get my history from history, and from what happened.
I think there must be a school that some of you righties go to that specializes in rewriting history, and changing perception on significant events. It's the craziest stuff to read when you write it; I keep asking, does he really believe this? Or is it just another 'sarcastic' post?
Just read the resolution dude, then try to lie your way out of what it actually says....its online....you don't have to take my word for anything...do your own homework...