Bush failed to link Hussein and Al-Qaeda

[cybok0]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/30355845#30355845



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30355903

[fallout2600]

:026:

[HDRoberts]

Ahhh, the whole picture. That is why we used "enhanced techniques."

[Skyhi]

:026:

I understand your point, but if this is true its not beating a dead horse....its something ALL Americans should be troubled over.

[fallout2600]

But now, we are spinning the torture topic into the Iraq invasion. Let us not forget that it was the majority of Congress that approved this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-GWB-AUMF-Press-Release-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-GWBauthorization-2)


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687), including interference with weapons inspectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission).
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) region."
Iraq's "brutal repression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq) of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War) and its own people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign)".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_assassination_a ttempts) of former President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones) following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi) of al-Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda).
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists), including the September 11th, 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks) terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and the Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) for the President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998), the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) regime and promote a democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Security_Council) all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq)" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security) of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."



An authorization by Congress was sought by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) soon after his September 12, 2002 statement before the U.N. General Assembly asking for quick action by the Security Council in enforcing the resolutions against Iraq.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-GWB-UN-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-4)
Of the legislation introduced by Congress in response to the President Bush's requests[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-5), S.J.Res. 45 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107sjres45)

sponsored by Sen. Daschle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle) & Sen. Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Lott) was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq, H.J.Res. 114 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hjres114)
sponsored by Rep. Hastert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert) & Rep. Gephardt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gephardt) and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107sjres46)
sponsored by Sen. Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman) were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hjres110)
sponsored by Rep. Hastings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings) was a separate proposal never considered on the floor. Eventually, the Hastert-Gephardt proposal became the primary legislation that Congress began to focus working on. Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002 in conjunction with the Administration's proposals[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-GWB-AUMF-Press-Release-1)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-6), H.J.Res. 114 (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.107hjres114)

passed the House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-House_of_Representatives_Roll_call-7) and passed the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#cite_note-Senate_Roll_call-8) It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)
by President Bush on October 16, 2002. United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote Republican 215 6 0 2 Democratic 82 126 0 1 Independent 0 1 0 0 TOTALS 297 133 0 3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Duncan_%28U.S._politician%29) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-TN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee)), Hostettler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hostettler) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-IN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)), Houghton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amo_Houghton) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-NY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York)), Leach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Leach) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-IA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa)), Morella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connie_Morella) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-MD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland)), Paul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-TX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders) (I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28politician%29)-VT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont))

Reps. Ortiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_P._Ortiz) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)-TX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)), Roukema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Roukema) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-NJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey)), and Stump (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Stump) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)-AZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona)) did not vote on the resolution.



United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote Republican 48 1 0 Democratic 29 21 0 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 77 23 0...

Which gave the executive branch too much power, to me, this is a more important lesson to learn. We need not allow the executive branch to make decision on its own when declaring war.

[HD MM]

But now, we are spinning the torture topic into the Iraq invasion. Let us not forget that it was the majority of Congress that approved this:


Yes I know. But to beat the dead horse further, we have since learned the only reason Congress approved of this was because they were deceived into thinking there were WMD's.

[fallout2600]

Yes I know. But to beat the dead horse further, we have since learned the only reason Congress approved of this was because they were deceived into thinking there were WMD's.

Do you understand that the Iraq war resolution delegated Congressional powers to the president?

Also, I believe everyone truly believed that the mission would only take a couple of months. Once again we were listening to the politicians instead of the military.

[HD MM]

Do you understand that the Iraq war resolution delegated Congressional powers to the president?

Also, I believe everyone truly believed that the mission would only take a couple of months. Once again we were listening to the politicians instead of the military.

Who came up with this "Resolution" in the first place?

It was this document that cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq. Evidently Congress and the President signed off on it to allow for war.

If this was truly the only evidence we went on to justify war, then maybe we should check into who's presenting the facts in the first place.

[Skyhi]

Do you understand that the Iraq war resolution delegated Congressional powers to the president?



I understand that and hopefully a valuable lesson was learned.

I also think Congress was bamboozled by bogus "evidence."

[fallout2600]

No doubt the evidence was shady, but an Iraq invasion had been planned since well before Bush 2 took office. The neo-cons tried to get Clinton to do it. The only difference with Bush was they had a "crisis" to create the momentum to pull it off.

[vurbano]

Yes I know. But to beat the dead horse further, we have since learned the only reason Congress approved of this was because they were deceived into thinking there were WMD's.DO you know what a WMD is? By defintion Saddam had them and had used them on his own people. You do know that Saddam also continually committed acts of war against the United States by shooting at our airplanes in the no fly zone do you not?

[msmith198025]

Yes I know. But to beat the dead horse further, we have since learned the only reason Congress approved of this was because they were deceived into thinking there were WMD's.
I know it was a popular thing to say that "we were lied too" when it became apparent that we were going to be there longer than first thought, but this stinks of politicians saving their butts.

Wait, what we thought was there wasnt? Lets hurry up and tell people that the info was faulty BUT it wasnt OUR faults. It was THEM.

As I see it, each and every one of them knew they had to do something. Iraq was an wasy target for the public, and they jumped on it.

[Bear Paws]

:026::026:http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

[vurbano]

its too bad we can't post all of those reasons in this thread. It should be required reading for newbies.

[fallout2600]

What lefties will never admit is that the world is a better place without Saddam. I love how they never mention the mass graves that we are still finding.

[HDRoberts]

What lefties will never admit is that the world is a better place without Saddam. I love how they never mention the mass graves that we are still finding.

If they people wanted rid of him, they should have rebelled themselves or at least asked. We were clearly not "welcomed as liberators."

[fallout2600]

You know, IMO, its amazing the we keep arguing the same talking points. Has anyone noticed that the violence in Iraq is starting up again. This enemy knows how to be patience and wait. They also know that we are stuck there. They also know that Obama won't leave Iraq until the violence is quelled. That being said, was McCain right that we could be there indefinitely?

My personal view is why wait on a pull out, if their will be violence regardless, why waste more capital on it (as if we have any left)?

[msmith198025]

its too bad we can't post all of those reasons in this thread. It should be required reading for newbies.
Why cant we?

[Bear Paws]

If they people wanted rid of him, they should have rebelled themselves or at least asked. We were clearly not "welcomed as liberators."
The war that began in 1990 was not started by America. It was started by Saddam Hussein.
They asked...
A little bit of history: Eighteen years ago at the end of the first Gulf War, the Shiite leadership asked the first President Bush for aid in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Believing, given the tenor of the time and success of GW I, he would have the backing and support of the then Democrat Congress, GHB urged a Shiite Muslim revolt against Saddam and promised American support. Based on that pledge, the Shiites indeed did stage a massive uprising in the southern section of Iraq. But the promised American support never materialized and Saddam brutally crushed the revolt using mass executions, torture and gas.

Why did we not help as promised you ask? Ask you liberal congressmen. The authorization never made it out of committee too the floor.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1990_cr/h900404-iraq.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htmMr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, our Government recently announced that it has evidence that terrorists supported by Iraq are planning attacks against United States interests around the world should the coalition use the military option to liberate Iraq.
The results where predictable..http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910117-terror.htm

IRAQ AND TERRORISM -- STATEMENT BY RICHARD BOUCHER

"The U.S. Government has evidence that terrorists supported by Iraq are planning to mount attacks in most regions of the world. We believe the Middle East and Europe are the most likely locations. We also have reports of terrorist planning in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The American public should be aware that, in the event of military action involving the United States in the Persian Gulf, the threat of terrorism against American citizens would increase significantly. The Department of State recommends that Americans take the following action to minimize the threat:"

[Bear Paws]

Why cant we?

:confused: Did you read it? It would use up 10-15 pages on a thread. There is a LOT of writing (and reading) there.

[msmith198025]

Well it would just be the longest darn thread here:)

Nah, it is posted in the link:thumbup:

[vurbano]

Why cant we?
I thought Mad posted something about copyright infringement?

[vurbano]

:confused: Did you read it? It would use up 10-15 pages on a thread. There is a LOT of writing (and reading) there.
thats never stopped me before:) Its the holy grail of lefty annoyances

[msmith198025]

I thought Mad posted something about copyright infringement?



What we discussed was AP related. This does not appear to be an AP site. Just to be on the safe side, perhaps the link will suffice though