Iraq: A Federal Judge's Point of View

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Udie
So because we found 2 of the mobil labs he lied?

No.  You didn't find any mobil labs.  You found to mobile hydrogen generators, produced my Marconi out of Britain.  They are used to inflate weather balloons for artillary purposes.  They never were mobile chemical biological weapons labs.

"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

 this a lie? [/B]

Well yes Udie.  You see, he said that they had found the weapons of mass destruction when they had not.  That's what we call a lie.

-Bush lying about balloon makers.

huh?

See above.

You poor child.

Oh grow up.

[Gadfly]

Let's clarify something before we go any further.

The "selling" was done by Media.  Be it Fox or CNN, they are the channel through which most people form their opinions.  It seems stupid to me that it is so, but that is the way it is.  So if you want to blame anyone other than yourself, it must be them, not the administration.  As an adult, you are responsible for what you allow yourself to be fed.

With a minimum of effort, anyone can determine the real facts, without relying on the opinions of others.  That is a personal choice, and if it is not done, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

Caveat Emptor applies to politics more-so than to consumerism.

[Frogm4n]

i was never sold on the idea of the war. but most of america was. then again most of america believes that saddam had something to do with 9/11.....

[k2cok]

Originally posted by Gadfly
K2, you presume that all information available to the Congress is, or must somehow be screened through the White House.  This is simply not true.

I am specifically referring to the fact that when Bush was pushing for the passage of H. J. Res 114: Armed Forces Against Iraq he did not give full intelligence disclosure to Congress citing "national security" as the reason, much as they did before the U.N., and lets not forget the "patriot police" effect either,.

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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

I think it's pretty clear that language like Section 2 above (bold text) probably had a strong effect on American perception (45%) that Iraq was culpable in the 9/11 atrocity.

[Gadfly]

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

So, how did you miss that "including"?

The action is against international terrorist and terrorist organizations.  Is this not a true statement of Iraq?

[Gadfly]

The Congress has oversight of the intelligence services, and thus had access to ALL information that the President has.  Not the whole Congress, but the members of the appropriate committees.  What is the political makeup of those committees?  It is not 100% Republican.

Look, we are just going round and round.  I am, and was satisfied with the grounds for War, you obviously are not.  We can can pick it apart forever, but the bottom line is that if someone was mislead, it was because they were not paying attention.  45% is a low estimate for idiots in the American populace , anyway, and it still means that 55% are smart enough to know the truth.

[Gadfly]

Gscholz, et al.  Unless you have rea..

Ah **** it, you are mindless sheep, and HT ain't paying me enough to educate you.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Udie
We shall see.  Personally it's still to early for me to judge either way.  How long were we in Germany/Japan after WW2?

 This was the right thing to do, period.  It was right on many many levels.  It still is.  It needed to be done 10 years ago but we had somebody in office who needed a character on the scene like sadaam to keep his scandals off the front page.  You'll never admit to that, but your wrong, just like your whole liberal idiology.  Wrong....

One can't compare Germany and Japan to Iraq. It's a completely different situation.

The main mistake of the Bush policy was to wage war with Iraq at all. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq did not support Al Qaeda. Iraq was absolutely no threat to the United States and regime change for the purposes of disarmamant does nothing but encourage other countries to build WMD.

These points are moot. We are now in Iraq and we are effectively trapped. The U.S. can't simply leave. The country is now less stable than it was before. Still, we can't simply throw more troops at the problem. We don't have enough and even if we did, we can't sustain this type of occupation forever. I suspect that democracy by force will take a long time. The answer isn't going to be found on this BBS. You can be certain.

You can also be certain that the federal government will spend more on Iraq than education in this country. I'm sorry, but they aren't worth it, IMHO.

Oh... and the notion that Clinton is to blame for the condition of Iraq is hilarious. You may not have noticed, but he's not relevant anymore.

[k2cok]

including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

News Flash:

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, even  Bush said so yesterday.

Don't look now but you just shot your own argument in the foot.

Ouch.

[Gadfly]

What part of "including" do you need a dictionary to figure out?

[k2cok]

Originally posted by GScholz
What specific terrorist attacks did the former government of Iraq commit, organize or aid?

You can't single out one word in that sentence to make a viable argument, and you can't have it both ways either.

Either Bush lied in his al-Queda/Iraq connection or he lied yesterday - which is it?

[Gadfly]

Jeez guys, I know you can't really be this blind, so I will just assume you are obtuse and leave it at that.  You can not have a discusion with some one that would make the above statement with a straight face.

I will leave you with 2 vignettes:

Abu Nidal, enough said.

I can think of no use for the body of an airliner at a camp in the desert, unless of course they were training stewardresses?

[Erlkonig]

k2cok, I think you're missing the forest for the trees in this case.  That section of bold text basically says that when Bush decides to use military action against Iraq, he has to notify Congress that he has determined the action consistent with the War on Terror.  For this to be a lie, you'd have to show that Bush did not believe the war in Iraq to be consistent with the War on Terror.

[Gadfly]

I could provide you the links, but you would not believe it anyway, so what is the point?

[Gadfly]

Hell with it, I am an insomniac tonight, so here:

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm


http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ITeamInsider030403.html

And don't forget about the assassination attempt of GW bush, either.