My old presumption has been just confirmed

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate


This is just another thing Bill Clinton passed onto George W. Bush

Here come the cavalry, folks. Or should I say the dittoheads?

Though there are a great many fallacies spread by Rush and his followers, this isn't one of them. It is a fact that Congress passed and Clinton signed into law the Iraqi Liberation Act making it US policy to depose Saddam Hussien. The Senate vote was unanimous, the House 400 some odd to 29. Trying to use this against Bush is going to backfire big time. The Dems need to concentrate on hitting him on his fiscal policies and religious evangelism if they are going to have any chance at all at the Whitehouse next fall.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

More than Kentucky [or California!] must be won Opposition to killing people needlessly is a uniting factor in all the states the Dems can possibly win.

Yes, I know about the so-called "Iraqi Liberation Act". That was official USA policy. There are three problems with that. One, it doesn't cover world opinion. Two, it doesn't specify when. Three, it doesn't cover effects.

The ILA was not carte blanche for Bush to storm into Basra whenever he liked. It does not excuse his cowboy diplomacy, it does not excuse his rush to war, and it does not excuse the mess he's currently making of it. The ILA is a statement of intent supposedly endorsed by the American people. But just because they support deposing Saddam does not necessarily mean they supported doing it under the circumstances and with the effects that we have seen. There was a similar case with the Teller Amendment, which stated the intent of the American people to ensure that Cuba would be a free nation. Did that happen? No. How many Americans who were behind Teller would have supported the subsequent Platt Amendment?

 

[Mr. Cackle]

Originally posted by The Chosen One
Also does anyone even care about the information that this Ex-treasury secretary is so pissed off at Bush for firing him? Confirmed by friends of his, he's quite pissed at Bush, and now it seems that he may have taken classified documents and given them to a reporter. This guy is just trying to get revenge

Also does anyone even care about the information that this president is so pissed off at Saddam for trying to kill his dad? Confirmed by Bush himself, he's quite pissed at Saddam, and now it seems that he may have produced fake classified documents and given them to the American people. This guy is just trying to get revenge.

I have 4 possible explanations for Bush going into Iraq:

1) Revenge. See my previous statement.

2) Oil/Lucrative contracts. Secure the oil reserves, get some money for the companies that support his campaigns, continue his ideology of helping the rich only.

3) Keep the jingoism up. He found that there was incredible support for his little trip to Afghanistan, and like a child, got bored with his toy and wanted one that's better. Iraq seemed to fit his agenda well, and a success there would mean re-election.

4) This is the crazy idea my dad cooked up and has tried to brainwash me with. Anyway, you know how we found all that money in Saddam's palaces? Well, the theory is that Saddam had ENORMOUS counterfeiting capabilities. think about it. What better way to ruin the US than to destroy its currency? If done on a massive scale, the US would be in ruin within 5 years. Then, a few days ago I noticed in the news that intel had hinted that North Korea had been using counterfeit US bills to pay for its weapon programs. What do you think?

 

[Speedo]

i wouldn't say every, but all in all i'd say yes. The US has had several conflicts with Iraq(many about the no fly zone) we should have had some sort of plan on what to do incase the seemingly invitable happends.

Any country with an army of more than boy scouts has plans for every scenario that could possibly happen, plus a few extras.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by The Chosen One
One thing i don't see in this thread is the bill signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 declaring Iraq was in need of a regime change. This is just another thing Bill Clinton passed onto George W. Bush, including the Al-Qaeda problem.

Can we agree at least here that this kind of thing will not be a point of argument? That kind of petty point-scoring can be kept to party politics. The US Government is the US Government, no matter who is in charge. responsibility is inherited.

Originally posted by Mazarin

But you should have a problem with your administration lying to the American people. They claimed they had evidence of WMD in Iraq.

heresay and conjecture are KINDS of evidence

 

[Norlamand]

Apparently we have plans to surreptitiously import the blood of unborn Iraqi children for use in arcane Republican rituals as well. But don't tell the press, ok?

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
More than Kentucky [or California!] must be won Opposition to killing people needlessly is a uniting factor in all the states the Dems can possibly win.

Polls show that Democrats are split 60/40 on Iraq, which is nowhere near enough to swing a national election. If Dean or another "pull-out" candidate wins the nomination, many will crossover or vote third party.

Yes, I know about the so-called "Iraqi Liberation Act". That was official USA policy. There are three problems with that. One, it doesn't cover world opinion. Two, it doesn't specify when. Three, it doesn't cover effects.

You are right it doesn't cover world opinion but Americans elect the president, not the world. Not specifying when can mean anytime, and when has a declaration of war (which the act effectively was) ever specified effects?

The ILA was not carte blanche for Bush to storm into Basra whenever he liked. It does not excuse his cowboy diplomacy, it does not excuse his rush to war, and it does not excuse the mess he's currently making of it. The ILA is a statement of intent supposedly endorsed by the American people. But just because they support deposing Saddam does not necessarily mean they supported doing it under the circumstances and with the effects that we have seen. There was a similar case with the Teller Amendment, which stated the intent of the American people to ensure that Cuba would be a free nation. Did that happen? No. How many Americans who were behind Teller would have supported the subsequent Platt Amendment?

It is true that the ILA didn't give Bush carte blanche, Congress did that Sept. 14, 2001, when they authorized him to "use all necessary military force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, their sponsors, and those who protected them." The Senate approved the resolution by a vote of 98-0, the House vote was 420 to 1. All Bush has to do to justify Iraq is tie Saddam to any group favorable to Al Qaida and he is covered under this extremely broad act.

EDIT: And of course the 2002 act that gave him the authority to use force in Iraq specifically.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Apparently we have plans to surreptitiously import the blood of unborn Iraqi children for use in arcane Republican rituals as well. But don't tell the press, ok?

"Nariyah".

Bit of a Freudian slip there, I think, Norl

Polls show that Democrats are split 60/40 on Iraq, which is nowhere near enough to swing a national election. If Dean or another "pull-out" candidate wins the nomination, many will crossover or vote third party.

After 2000, do you really think many Dems will vote for Nader? Especially when the outcome is obvious? At this point, the most influential person campaigning for the Democrats is: George Dubya. No matter how bad the Dems get, they can still point out that the alternative is REALLY scraping the bottom of the barrel.

It is true that the ILA didn't give Bush carte blanche, Congress did that Sept. 14, 2001, when they authorized him to "use all necessary military force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, their sponsors, and those who protected them."

Iraq is not covered by that provision.

All Bush has to do to justify Iraq is tie Saddam to any group favorable to Al Qaida and he is covered under this extremely broad act.


Attempts to do that have fallen through. For example the "Czech meeting". Besides:

any group favorable to Al Qaida

That too is not covered by the provision.