Author Topic: Big Lie Democrats  (Read 7600 times)

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2007, 10:59:08 AM »
...You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!

Wrong.

My arguments are superior to yours.

I use fact based arguments. 

You don't.

I present the legal framework for why the invasion is illegal.

You offer nothing but a weak and irrelevant point that Blix is not competent.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2007, 11:01:56 AM »
Congress granted Bush the authority to use force when necessary under the War Powers resolution.

Bush needed to exercise that grant of authority in accordance w/ various standards and treatises to execute a legal use of force, i.e., no war crimes.

Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the WMD resolutions against Iraq.  Remember Powell's disgraceful performance?

Under Res. 1441 the president was not authorized to order any use of force until a finding of WMDs and a subsequent holding by the UN Security Council that use of force was necessary.

Bush ordered the invasion and warned the inspectors to get out of Iraq before they'd finished their jobs.


This has nothing to do with the grant of authority by Congress.

This illegal invasion is all Bush's doing.

And Congress endorsed this "illegal invasion":

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
 . . .

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2007, 11:15:04 AM »
And Congress endorsed this "illegal invasion":

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

...
 
   FACT BOX
• "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 Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.   
 

...

You are missing the point.  Congress gave Bush the authority to use force to disarm Iraq if necessary.

Iraq was complying with the inspections and Bush ordered the use of force anyways in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Was use of force necessary?  No.  Iraq was complying.

How does Bush's misuse of Congressional Authority implicate Congress?  It doesn't.  Bush used force in contravention of res. 1441 and in spite of the fact of Iraq's compliance.



Take another look:  "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,"

Did Iraq attack the US or an ally? No.


and "(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

Did Bush enforce UN resolutions?  No. He broke UN resolutions by ordering the attack.


Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2007, 11:16:04 AM »
...You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!

This certainly sounds like you are a relativist to me.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2007, 11:21:52 AM »
Remember he was a UNInspector, there not exactly known for doing their jobs!

Are you just repeating this?

Or can you cite several examples of the UN inspectors NOT doing their jobs in the past?

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2007, 11:24:44 AM »
Also of note,

President Bush is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. 

As such, his order of attack was his decision to make and not Congress'.

That's why Bush is solely repsonsible.

big L dawg

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5729
  • i always tell the truth even when i lie...
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2007, 11:26:04 AM »
I'm so amused by the thinking of the 29% of america that still stands behind bush.
DAWG

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22715
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2007, 11:47:37 AM »
I'm so amused by the thinking of the 29% of america that still stands behind bush.

NO, actually Bush stands behind them and they are all comfortably bent over.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2007, 11:51:05 AM »
You are missing the point.  Congress gave Bush the authority to use force to disarm Iraq if necessary.

Iraq was complying with the inspections and Bush ordered the use of force anyways in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441.

Was use of force necessary?  No.  Iraq was complying.

How does Bush's misuse of Congressional Authority implicate Congress?  It doesn't.  Bush used force in contravention of res. 1441 and in spite of the fact of Iraq's compliance.



Take another look:  "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,"

Did Iraq attack the US or an ally? No.


and "(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"

Did Bush enforce UN resolutions?  No. He broke UN resolutions by ordering the attack.



Actually I think you're missing the point.  Democrats represented to the American people, unequivocally, that Saddam was a threat before and after the invasion.  Democrats endorsed the war after it started.  There has been no declaration from the UN or Congress that the war was illegal.  They all believed Saddam was a threat.  So to say Bush lied to start the war is to say Congress and the UN lied as well.  It really makes no sense to me.  They all believed, and represented, that Saddam was threat.  

Congress gave Bush the discretion to determine whether war was necessary:    

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.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Disagreeing with the decision to go to war is one thing, but saying the war is "illegal" and that Bush "lied" has no factual support, when you look at all of the facts.  

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #59 on: May 11, 2007, 12:25:43 PM »
Actually I think you're missing the point.  Democrats represented to the American people, unequivocally, that Saddam was a threat before and after the invasion.  Democrats endorsed the war after it started.  There has been no declaration from the UN or Congress that the war was illegal.  They all believed Saddam was a threat.  So to say Bush lied to start the war is to say Congress and the UN lied as well.  It really makes no sense to me.  They all believed, and represented, that Saddam was threat.
 

Which one of the Democrats is the President and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces?

None.

As I said before, who cares what the democrats thought anyways?

What the democrats thought is irrelevant to what the actual WMD Inspectors were finding on the ground in Iraq.  The Inspectors were the best indicators of whether Iraq had WMDs or not.

It is obvious that Bush lied about the war—conflating 9/11 and Hussein repeatedly in speeches until about 70% of the American public made that connection.

To deny that he lied is folly. 

Proving that he lied is another matter.



Congress gave Bush the discretion to determine whether war was necessary:   

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.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm

Disagreeing with the decision to go to war is one thing, but saying the war is "illegal" and that Bush "lied" has no factual support, when you look at all of the facts. 

You have provided no facts to support your case.  If there are facts to exculpate Bush please list them.

The Congressional grant of authority is just that and only that.  That authority is exercised in web of treaties (part of the US Constitution) and international judicial holdings.

If George Bush had carte blanche (your point) to do as he pleased simply b/c Congress authorized the use of force, why did he run to the UN to enforce existing resolutions?

Because he wanted the veneer of legality for his use of force, otherwise he would be swinging from the neck guilty of war crimes.

Bush was compelled to go to the UN to ask for permission to use force b/c Iraq did not attack us, did not attack an ally, and was not engaging in genocidal behavior.

As I have shown before, Bush did not enforce any UN resolution but he sure as shit violated res. 1441.

Here it is summarized:

1.   Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to invade Iraq
2.   Congress authorized him to use force to disarm Iraq’s WMDs
3.   Shortly thereafter, Hussein let WMD inspectors into Iraq
4.   They were finding nothing
5.   Bush ordered the attack to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Iraq even though no weapons were found.
6.   Res. 1441 does not authorize any single UN member country to unilaterally make such an order—Only the Security Council can authorize use of force for enforcing a UN Resolution
7.   Bush, cmdr. And chief, broke the law by ordering an invasion before WMDs were found and before the Security Council could authorize a use of force.



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #60 on: May 11, 2007, 12:44:13 PM »
 

Which one of the Democrats is the President and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces?

None.

As I said before, who cares what the democrats thought anyways?

What the democrats thought is irrelevant to what the actual WMD Inspectors were finding on the ground in Iraq.  The Inspectors were the best indicators of whether Iraq had WMDs or not.

It is obvious that Bush lied about the war—conflating 9/11 and Hussein repeatedly in speeches until about 70% of the American public made that connection.

To deny that he lied is folly. 

Proving that he lied is another matter.

You have provided no facts to support your case.  If there are facts to exculpate Bush please list them.

The Congressional grant of authority is just that and only that.  That authority is exercised in web of treaties (part of the US Constitution) and international judicial holdings.

If George Bush had carte blanche (your point) to do as he pleased simply b/c Congress authorized the use of force, why did he run to the UN to enforce existing resolutions?

Because he wanted the veneer of legality for his use of force, otherwise he would be swinging from the neck guilty of war crimes.

Bush was compelled to go to the UN to ask for permission to use force b/c Iraq did not attack us, did not attack an ally, and was not engaging in genocidal behavior.

As I have shown before, Bush did not enforce any UN resolution but he sure as shit violated res. 1441.

Here it is summarized:

1.   Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to invade Iraq
2.   Congress authorized him to use force to disarm Iraq’s WMDs
3.   Shortly thereafter, Hussein let WMD inspectors into Iraq
4.   They were finding nothing
5.   Bush ordered the attack to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Iraq even though no weapons were found.
6.   Res. 1441 does not authorize any single UN member country to unilaterally make such an order—Only the Security Council can authorize use of force for enforcing a UN Resolution
7.   Bush, cmdr. And chief, broke the law by ordering an invasion before WMDs were found and before the Security Council could authorize a use of force.




Here is what's missing from your outline:

1998:  President Clinton:  "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
   
1998:  President Clinton:  "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   
1998:  Sany Berger:  "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   
1998:  Senators Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others:  "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
   
1998:  Pelosi:  "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
   
1999:  Albright:  "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
   
2001:  Sen. Graham (D) and others to President Bush:  "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
   
2002:  Sen. Levin (D):  "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

2002:  Gore:  "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."  "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
 
2002:  Sen. Kennedy:  "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
 
2002:  Sen. Byrd:  "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

2002:  Sen. Kerry:  "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   
2003:  Sen. Kerry:  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I omitted some, including representations from President Hillary.     

So here you have Democrats telling the American people and two presidents from 1998 through 2003 that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed.  President Bush took action and disarmed Saddam and now he lied?  You cannot ignore these unequivocal representations when claiming that Bush "lied" about Saddam being a threat.

And if the war is illegal, why did Congress pass resolutions endorsing the war after it started?  And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.? 


Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2007, 12:55:58 PM »
And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.? 

The UN would never condemn any of the Security Council permanent members, who all have a veto.

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #62 on: May 11, 2007, 01:08:02 PM »
Here is what's missing from your outline:

1998:  President Clinton:  "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
   
1998:  President Clinton:  "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   
1998:  Sany Berger:  "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   
1998:  Senators Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others:  "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
   
1998:  Pelosi:  "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
   
1999:  Albright:  "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
   
2001:  Sen. Graham (D) and others to President Bush:  "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
   
2002:  Sen. Levin (D):  "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

2002:  Gore:  "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."  "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
 
2002:  Sen. Kennedy:  "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
 
2002:  Sen. Byrd:  "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

2002:  Sen. Kerry:  "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   
2003:  Sen. Kerry:  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I omitted some, including representations from President Hillary.     

So here you have Democrats telling the American people and two presidents from 1998 through 2003 that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed.  President Bush took action and disarmed Saddam and now he lied?  You cannot ignore these unequivocal representations when claiming that Bush "lied" about Saddam being a threat.

And if the war is illegal, why did Congress pass resolutions endorsing the war after it started?  And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.? 


Those are all beautiful quotes about belief but entirely irrelevant to what the WMD inspectors were finding on the ground in carrying out the disarmament policy of resolution 1441.

Whether the invasion is legal b/c Bush lied about Hussein's WMDs is also irrelevant. 

I merely point out that the president did lie.  Lying is immaterial to the President's illegal use of force against Iraq.

It doesn't matter, (irrelevant) whether the Congress or the UN condemn Bush's illegal invasion.  That does not change the fact that under the current laws & treaties, Bush's use of force was criminal.

UN Sec. General Annan called the invasion illegal in 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Do you really believe that a republican rubberstamp Congress would call a spade a spade?

The ABA and vast majority of legal scholars called the invasion illegal.  http://legal.lege.net/the-rule-of-law/#04
http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/arms.html

Richard Perle admitted the invasion is illegal.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

The only constitutional remedy for this sort of illegality in the US is impeachment.

The censure you call for is extra-constitutional. 

That's the reason censure failed in the Clinton fiasco--censure is not authorized by the Constitution.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2007, 01:21:41 PM »
Those are all beautiful quotes about belief but entirely irrelevant to what the WMD inspectors were finding on the ground in carrying out the disarmament policy of resolution 1441.

Whether the invasion is legal b/c Bush lied about Hussein's WMDs is also irrelevant. 

I merely point out that the president did lie.  Lying is immaterial to the President's illegal use of force against Iraq.

It doesn't matter, (irrelevant) whether the Congress or the UN condemn Bush's illegal invasion.  That does not change the fact that under the current laws & treaties, Bush's use of force was criminal.

UN Sec. General Annan called the invasion illegal in 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Do you really believe that a republican rubberstamp Congress would call a spade a spade?

The ABA and vast majority of legal scholars called the invasion illegal.  http://legal.lege.net/the-rule-of-law/#04
http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/arms.html

Richard Perle admitted the invasion is illegal.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

The only constitutional remedy for this sort of illegality in the US is impeachment.

The censure you call for is extra-constitutional. 

That's the reason censure failed in the Clinton fiasco--censure is not authorized by the Constitution.

Let me see if I'm following you:

1.  Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat. 

2.  The fact Republicans and Democrats in Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started has no relevance to whether Congress can now say the war was illegal. 

3.  A bunch of academic yahoos, Annan et al. said the war is illegal, but neither the UN nor Congress has done squat about it.


 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2007, 01:27:46 PM »
The UN would never condemn any of the Security Council permanent members, who all have a veto.

-Hedge

I think they'd be reluctant to do so, but if one of the members illegally invades another, I'm sure they'd do something.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2007, 01:31:24 PM »
Let me see if I'm following you:

1.  Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat. 

2.  The fact Republicans and Democrats in Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started has no relevance to whether Congress can now say the war was illegal. 

3.  A bunch of academic yahoos, Annan et al. said the war is illegal, but neither the UN nor Congress has done squat about it.

Yeah, what do lawyers know about the law?--It's that type of dogmatic nonsense that doesn't serve you well Beach Bum.

As for Congress endorsing the war before and after...that's irrelevant to whether the president's ordered attack was legal or not.


Beach Bum, please look at these questions and answer the final one.

Why was use of force by the US necessary? 

B/c Hussein/Iraq represented a threat to us b/c he/it possessed WMDs.

How do we know?

We don't.

How do we verify if Iraq had WMDs?

WMD Inspectors must inspect Iraq under UN Res. 1441.

Results:  No WMDs as the inspections wore on.

Yet Bush attacked.

If the inspectors were doing their jobs under res. 1441 and finding no WMDs, why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?

Hedgehog

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19464
  • It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #66 on: May 11, 2007, 01:35:50 PM »
I think they'd be reluctant to do so, but if one of the members illegally invades another, I'm sure they'd do something.

Think about the Israel/Palestine situation.

Why hasn't there been any intervention there?

The reason is that USA, and sometimes another member of the security country, will veto it.

Why are there problems with getting resolutions through against North Korea?

Because China wants to deal with its own backyard, and vetoes any such major resolution.

Why was it easy to get a UN op going in Yugoslavia?

Because the global political situation wasn't as uptight, and none of the permanent Security council members had any objections to it.

-Hedge
As empty as paradise

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #67 on: May 11, 2007, 01:39:55 PM »
Yeah, what do lawyers know about the law?--It's that type of dogmatic nonsense that doesn't serve you well Beach Bum.

As for Congress endorsing the war before and after...that's irrelevant to whether the president's ordered attack was legal or not.


Beach Bum, please look at these questions and answer the final one.

Why was use of force by the US necessary? 

B/c Hussein/Iraq represented a threat to us b/c he/it possessed WMDs.

How do we know?

We don't.

How do we verify if Iraq had WMDs?

WMD Inspectors must inspect Iraq under UN Res. 1441.

Results:  No WMDs as the inspections wore on.

Yet Bush attacked.

If the inspectors were doing their jobs under res. 1441 and finding no WMDs, why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?


Decker I am not impressed by academics giving opinions about the war, unless the sentiment is unanimous.  Is it?  

Why was force necessary and why did Bush order the invasion?  Ask Senator Kerry, who summarized the sentiment of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and probably much of the world (through the UN):

2003:  Sen. Kerry:  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

And I'm sorry, but the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started is highly relevant to whether or not Congress now believes the war was illegal.  I'll eat my Lakers and Niners hats if that ever happens.  I think it fails legally and doesn't pass the common sense test.  

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #68 on: May 11, 2007, 01:42:44 PM »
Decker I am not impressed by academics giving opinions about the war, unless the sentiment is unanimous.  Is it?  

Why was force necessary and why did Bush order the invasion?  Ask Senator Kerry, who summarized the sentiment of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and probably much of the world (through the UN):

2003:  Sen. Kerry:  "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

And I'm sorry, but the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started is highly relevant to whether or not Congress now believes the war was illegal.  I'll eat my Lakers and Niners hats if that ever happens.  I think it fails legally and doesn't pass the common sense test.  
It is damn near unanimous. 

In fact if you can supply a credible legal scholar who claims that Bush did not break the law with his invasion, I'd like to see that opinion.

Was Senator Kerry a WMD inspector on the ground in Iraq doing inspections?

My evidence is better than your evidence.

I can't read the mind of Congress as to the legality of Bush's invasion.

But I sure can read res. 1441 and its predecessors and conclude that the President broke the law.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #69 on: May 11, 2007, 01:47:40 PM »
Gotta go guys.

Have a great weekend. 

I'll see you on Monday.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #70 on: May 11, 2007, 01:49:02 PM »
1.  Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat. 

Does that "everyone" include the UN inspectors?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #71 on: May 11, 2007, 01:59:58 PM »
Think about the Israel/Palestine situation.

Why hasn't there been any intervention there?

The reason is that USA, and sometimes another member of the security country, will veto it.

Why are there problems with getting resolutions through against North Korea?

Because China wants to deal with its own backyard, and vetoes any such major resolution.

Why was it easy to get a UN op going in Yugoslavia?

Because the global political situation wasn't as uptight, and none of the permanent Security council members had any objections to it.

-Hedge

Good points.  Still, if one sovereign country clearly illegally invades another, I doubt the UN would do nothing.  The UN Security Council has had disagreements in the past over certain conduct by different countries. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #72 on: May 11, 2007, 02:03:43 PM »
It is damn near unanimous. 

In fact if you can supply a credible legal scholar who claims that Bush did not break the law with his invasion, I'd like to see that opinion.

Was Senator Kerry a WMD inspector on the ground in Iraq doing inspections?

My evidence is better than your evidence.

I can't read the mind of Congress as to the legality of Bush's invasion.

But I sure can read res. 1441 and its predecessors and conclude that the President broke the law.

Define "credible legal scholar."   :)

Senator Kerry probably had better and more complete information than those "credible legal scholars." 

What evidence?  Dude we are both arm chair QBs.   :)

I can read what Congress had to say about the war.  Sounds crystal clear to me.  They obviously didn't think the prez broke the law if they endorsed his conduct.   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63956
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #73 on: May 11, 2007, 02:05:17 PM »
Does that "everyone" include the UN inspectors?


Ask Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd: (2002 comments):

 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998.  We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

Mr. Intenseone

  • Guest
Re: Big Lie Democrats
« Reply #74 on: May 11, 2007, 02:12:47 PM »
Wrong again.

You post your nameless inspector and I'll post All the the BLix reports which concluded that NO WMDS were being found. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/chronology.asp  http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp
You will find links to Blix's reports about WMDs in Iraq...I mean the absence of WMDs in Iraq.

Who was right about the WMDs in Iraq again?

Oh that's right, (all together now) "Hans Blix was right and Pres. Bush (and you) were wrong."

Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq: “The World is Better Off"

   

October 7, 2004- The chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the resources and intension to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The following are excerpts from his testimony:

   

Summary

“What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001 , things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended--- and sanctions were eroding.”

     

On whether the world is safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars…

“In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil.”

   

“ Analytically, the world is better off.”

     

On Saddam's strategy to erode sanctions…

“The steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food [OFF] program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001 was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions. Moreover, illicit revenues grew to quite substantial levels during the same period and it is instructive to see how and where the Regime allocated these funds.”

     

“ISG's investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions. The Regime, following a pattern that Saddam has applied throughout his career, offered rewards and a rationale for accepting them, successfully arguing its case that the sanctions were harming the innocent, and that the moral choice was to elude and diminish them. It is grossly obvious how successful the Regime was. It is also grossly obvious how the sanctions perverted not just the national system of finance and economics, but to some extent the international markets and organizations.”

     

“The Procurement and Finance section notes that a sizeable portion of the illicit revenues generated under the Oil for Food program went to the Military Industrial Commission (the government-run military-industrial establishment). The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past WMD programs went from approximately $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001. During this period of growing resource availability, many military programs were carried out—including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council .”

     

On Saddam's experience at concealing his WMD activities…

“From the experience of dealing with UN inspectors the Iraqis learned a great deal about what signatures we looked for. Iraqis generally knew a lot more about us than we did about them. For various reasons, their ability and desire to conceal their intentions and capabilities were quite good.”

     

On Saddam's belief in the necessity of WMD…

“Saddam committed the brightest minds and much national treasure to developing WMD. Moreover, Saddam saw this investment as having paid vital dividends. Senior Iraqis state that only through the use of long-range ballistic missiles and the extensive use of chemical weapons did Iraq avoid defeat in the war with Iran . There is also a second, less obvious instance where the regime attributes its survival to possession of WMD.”

     

“In the run-up to the 1991 war, Iraq loaded, dispersed and pre-delegated the authority to use both biological and chemical weapons if the coalition proceeded to Baghdad . The Regime believes its possession of WMD deterred the US from going to Baghdad in 1991. Moreover, it has been clear in my discussions with senior Iraqis that they clearly understand that they blundered in invading Kuwait before completing their nuclear weapons program. Had they waited, the outcome would have been quite different . Finally, Saddam also used chemical weapons for domestic purposes—in the late Eighties against the Kurds and during the Shi'a uprisings after the 1991 war.”

   

On Saddam's efforts to develop missile delivery systems…

“A couple of points are of interest from the Iraq missile efforts. One is that they did not bide by the range limits set in UN Security Council Resolution 687. The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits. Iraq also used components from SA-2 engines that they had expressly been prohibited. Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared. They also tested UAVs in excess of the range limits .”

   

“ Iraq missile developers became so confident that others would violate the sanctions that they designed new missile systems which depended upon the import of guidance systems. Further, they drew upon the foreign expertise that was readily available for such areas as propulsion.”

   

“ Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf war. Saddam drew a distinction between long range missiles and WMD—a distinction not drawn in the UN resolutions. Iraq 's missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels, and even guidance systems. As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, Saddam directed more missile activities. In the later years, more foreign assistance was brought in—including both technology and technical expertise. While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point…so long as sanctions remained. However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done very quickly. The CW and BW warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.”

 

On Saddam's nuclear ambitions…

“There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas.”

 

“Despite this decay [in his nuclear program], Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them. He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, clearly implying matching Tehran's nuclear capabilities. Saddam observed that India and Pakistan had slipped across the nuclear weapons boundary quite successfully. Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field .”

 

On Saddam's chemical weapons aspirations…

“As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.”

 

“Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity .”

 

“By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two .”
 
 
 
 
http://www.house.gov/garymiller/WeaponsInspector.html