Bush's Speech

[chomerics]

Thought this needed a thread

[Enter Apotheosis]

I zoned out 15 minutes ago.

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Well, he did take full blame for everything that has gone wrong. I didn't expect him to come out and say that at all. I applaud him for that.

[Bang]

Must say I agree with him.
It's not time to run away.

~Bang

[chomerics]

Well, he did take full blame for everything that has gone wrong. I didn't expect him to come out and say that at all. I applaud him for that.

Who could he blame it on? That's just stating the obvious. I don't see any difference, other then getting in people who agree with him.

[Major Harris]

chom, we all know basically what your reaction will be regardless of what he says. :laugh:

[zoony]

Thought this needed a thread



Why don't I save everyone the time and trouble.

The resident ES libs will declare the speech a failure.

The resident ES conservatives will applaud him for his leadership.

Mass_Skins_Fan will make a ridiculous post about communism in this country. A newb and/or member with plenty of time on his/her hands will respond, and we're looking at roughly 15 pages.


There. We're done. Now close the thread and let's get back to the important topics, like whether or not Wal Mart is in fact sold out of the Nintendo Wii in southern MD.

....

[portisizzle]

There is no other American option than the one he suggested. Political rhetoric aside, we are not going to leave the Iraqi people out to dry.

[chomerics]

There is no other American option than the one he suggested. Political rhetoric aside, we are not going to leave the Iraqi people out to dry.

Why not?

[portisizzle]

Why not?

Why not leave them out to dry?

[WVUforREDSKINS]

Who could he blame it on? That's just stating the obvious. I don't see any difference, other then getting in people who agree with him.



I didn't expect him to take the blame. I figured he he is to stubborn to say "I take the blame." I expected him to say mistakes have been made, blah, blah,blah so we should do this now....

[Bang]

Why not?


for the exact reason he said. Doing so would make the current violence look like a walk in the park. It would embolden our enemy, and do nothing but strengthen his resolve to finish HIS war.. even if we pretend ours is finished.

Islamic terrorism on Americans and other westerners would not stop. Likely would escalate.

ever seen a guy who tries to be the "big man" in a fistfight? He may keep his pride by not fighting, but he ends up beaten and bloody more often than not. Guys who walk away after a fight has already begun end up getting punched in the back of the head over and over again.

I also have never ever in my entire life seen a guy gain respect by walking away. Maybe on TV..In reality his enemy only views him with more scorn, and more often than not, will increase his attacks.

~Bang

[Redskins Diehard]

Shouldn't we wait for Olberman to tell us how bad it was?

[Sticksboi05]

Who could he blame it on? That's just stating the obvious. I don't see any difference, other then getting in people who agree with him.

He could blame it on false intelligence.

[GSF]

I have to admit that I just don't know what to feel about the war anymore. I voted for Bush, and originally supported our efforts in Iraq. I think removing Sadam was the right thing to do, but now I wonder if we'll ever get this thing right. It seems like every time we think we have got it figured out the situation gets worse. I don't think that our leaders are confident that we can win, but they think we need to stay anyway b/c they don't have a better solution. I know I'm very tired of reading about Americans getting killed there, and how less and less Iraqis actually want us to be there.

I have a very bad feeling about sending 20,000 more troops, but I understand the danger of pulling out. Having said all that, if we don't get the situation under some semblance of control real soon, I think I'd be in favor of just pulling all of our troops out.

[redskins59]

I feel that increase of 20K is not enough. We need more. We need to secure Baghdad, where the bulk of the violence occurs, while simultaneously ensuring that Al Qaeda operatives are not entering Iraq from Syria and Iran. The biggest problem of course is sectarian violence. The second biggest problem is Al Qaeda. Perhaps Anbar Province is indeed where Al Qaeda operatives have holed themselves, but there will always be influx of these people if we do not secure the borders. We need to freeze assets of foreign donors who are aiding people who're creating havoc in Iraq. Perhaps a diplomatic solution is in effect. In other words, bring Syria and Iran to the table and let's have a good talk to decide how to fix Iraq. Let's face it, Iran and Syria will always be Iraq's neighbors. Without bringing them to the table, I don't see how we can go about fixing Iraq.

[chomerics]

for the exact reason he said. Doing so would make the current violence look like a walk in the park. It would embolden our enemy, and do nothing but strengthen his resolve to finish HIS war.. even if we pretend ours is finished.

Islamic terrorism on Americans and other westerners would not stop. Likely would escalate.

ever seen a guy who tries to be the "big man" in a fistfight? He may keep his pride by not fighting, but he ends up beaten and bloody more often than not. Guys who walk away after a fight has already begun end up getting punched in the back of the head over and over again.

I also have never ever in my entire life seen a guy gain respect by walking away. Maybe on TV..In reality his enemy only views him with more scorn, and more often than not, will increase his attacks.

~Bang

Yet the military people who are in close say in order to fix it, you need to bring in several hundred thousand troops.

Hey, if you want to "win the war" then by all means do so, that will mean reconstituting the draft and calling up 500,000 troops. Otherwise, get the hell out, the 20K BS is going to do nothing more then get more of our guys killed.

[Buford]

I think the President believes what he's saying. I also believe that this admin sees this as their last chance to at least put their fingers in the leaky dam hoping that a solution is figured out.

However, I think there are too many Republicans who are on the other side of this, who will very vocal against this action, claiming that the President is using American lives as a buffer for something that isn't likely to work.

As far as blame, that bad intell one doesn't work anymore because they ask why no other country was willing to act on the intell except for us. So, either they didn't feel it was strong enough to attack Iraq, or I don't know.

The part I agreed with was the "no open ended" American Military in Iraq section. I hope that's true.

[Gallntfox]

Well, he did take full blame for everything that has gone wrong.

He must have studied a Joe Gibbs presser. ;)

[Bang]

Yet the military people who are in close say in order to fix it, you need to bring in several hundred thousand troops.

Hey, if you want to "win the war" then by all means do so, that will mean reconstituting the draft and calling up 500,000 troops. Otherwise, get the hell out, the 20K BS is going to do nothing more then get more of our guys killed.

Every general in history wants more men. The thought of going in force is a good one. Overwhelm the enemy. In the long run many more lives are saved by a quicker defeat of the enemy.
It's my opinion that the strategy of sitting and waiting for the enemy to strike is the best way to lose. we need to go on the offensive,, not little patrols, all out offensive, flush them out, kill the enemy. Take ground and hold it. Secure it, and then continue on the offensive until victory is secured.
Sitting there trying to win by playing defense is not going to cut it. Ducks sit, and look what happens to them. Fighting from garrison always loses, from Masada on down thru history.

Anyway, while we're on it, don't you have any thought on what a US pullout would do for our enemy?
They are viable, they are real. Do yo think they'll quit, or do you think that they will continue their stated mission of establishing islamic world dominance and spilling as much American blood as possible?
The factions we're fighting are not looking to just run out an invader and go on with their lives.

~Bang

[RVAbrendan]

Why don't I save everyone the time and trouble.

The resident ES libs will declare the speech a failure.

The resident ES conservatives will applaud him for his leadership.

Mass_Skins_Fan will make a ridiculous post about communism in this country. A newb and/or member with plenty of time on his/her hands will respond, and we're looking at roughly 15 pages.


There. We're done. Now close the thread and let's get back to the important topics, like whether or not Wal Mart is in fact sold out of the Nintendo Wii in southern MD.

....

I guess I'm the only one who found this post rather comical :laugh:

[portisizzle]

I have to admit that I just don't know what to feel about the war anymore. I voted for Bush, and originally supported our efforts in Iraq. I think removing Sadam was the right thing to do, but now I wonder if we'll ever get this thing right. It seems like every time we think we have got it figured out the situation gets worse. I don't think that our leaders are confident that we can win, but they think we need to stay anyway b/c they don't have a better solution. I know I'm very tired of reading about Americans getting killed there, and how less and less Iraqis actually want us to be there.

I have a very bad feeling about sending 20,000 more troops, but I understand the danger of pulling out. Having said all that, if we don't get the situation under some semblance of control real soon, I think I'd be in favor of just pulling all of our troops out.


I think it is worth noting that this struggle is not going to end in 12 months. It is likely that this war on terror will span many years and multiple administrations.

For whatever reason this debate has been framed with the political cycle in mind. One thing that we can be certain. Islamic extremists will not be beaten by bombs and guns in the long run. It will be won in the long run by persuanding the minds and hearts of the people in these third world countries in the middle east.

But before they can be persuaded the need to be given a chance to be part of the equation. This is what Bush has been trying to do. Place a free democratic society in the middle of chaos. How could anyone could expect a quick and clean victory out of this?

It was going to be ugly. EDIT ** It IS going to be ugly.

But remember, what is more ugly. Deal with a weak and spread out opposition? Or wait until they are a legitimate threat to our country? 3000 deaths are a lot of loss for us as Americans. But in the history of our country we have lost MUCH more having waited until the bearing point of a conflict.

I agree with our President and as an American I agree that we can not cut and run in what is the infancy of a legitimate fight with the mortal enemy of the 21st century.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm surprised anyone gives a **** anymore.

[portisizzle]

I'm surprised anyone gives a **** anymore.

My kids are eight, six, and five. Yea, I give a ****. I am more suprised by the fact that you DON'T.

[Ken]

Can't believe what I am reading. People are ok with this? The president is moving lone wolf on this. He is acting like a dictator if you believe the wimper coming from the Dems that they didn't know.

Guys, you can call me a quack, whatever you want. You guys need to wake the hell up and realize the stuff your seeing on TV is not what is actually going on.

It is pure propaganda. We went from weapons of mass destruction, to overthrow the terrible dictator, to Al-queda, to al-queda, to al-queda, to kill the dictator, to one last push. Are we serious here? Did anyone happen to catch the part in his speech about increasing the military size? How about how much danger we are in?

We have troops over there in the 5th and 6th tours of duty. They can't get out because they won't let them out. Why are they there? Is it really that important? We have done nothing but kill a lot of people and create massive unrest in that region since we have been there. I'm not even talking about the poisoning of an entire region (including our troops) with radiation for eternity due to our use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is completely incredible that anyone could back this operation. We need to get our troops out of harms way, stop this illegal war, and retake our country from these fake gov't officials.

I know most will laugh at this post, but I just needed to say some of this in not even a coherent way.

[chomerics]

He could blame it on false intelligence.

We've seen that game before, it didn't work then and it won't work now.

[Bang]

My kids are eight, six, and five. Yea, I give a ****. I am more suprised by the fact that you DON'T.
Pretty much exactly what I think.
I look at my boy.

~Bang

[Ken]

for the exact reason he said. Doing so would make the current violence look like a walk in the park. It would embolden our enemy, and do nothing but strengthen his resolve to finish HIS war.. even if we pretend ours is finished.

Islamic terrorism on Americans and other westerners would not stop. Likely would escalate.

ever seen a guy who tries to be the "big man" in a fistfight? He may keep his pride by not fighting, but he ends up beaten and bloody more often than not. Guys who walk away after a fight has already begun end up getting punched in the back of the head over and over again.

I also have never ever in my entire life seen a guy gain respect by walking away. Maybe on TV..In reality his enemy only views him with more scorn, and more often than not, will increase his attacks.

~Bang

What violence?

You mean people defending their country from an occupying force?

I'm sure if another country was here bombing you relatives and friends, you would also stand by idly.

I'm not seeing any "terrorism" here at home. Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act, terrorism still kills less americans than peanut allergies and vaccines.

Ever thought about that?

[Major Harris]

Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act,


is there another term for it?

[SkinsHokieFan]

is there another term for it?


I was told by some lefty's at a debate I was in shortly after 9/11 that it was a "crime" and should be prosecuted that way

I don't know how I didn't get up from my spot at the debate table and punch the geek

[chomerics]

Every general in history wants more men. The thought of going in force is a good one. Overwhelm the enemy. In the long run many more lives are saved by a quicker defeat of the enemy.
It's my opinion that the strategy of sitting and waiting for the enemy to strike is the best way to lose. we need to go on the offensive,, not little patrols, all out offensive, flush them out, kill the enemy. Take ground and hold it. Secure it, and then continue on the offensive until victory is secured.
Sitting there trying to win by playing defense is not going to cut it. Ducks sit, and look what happens to them. Fighting from garrison always loses, from Masada on down thru history.

The simple truth is that we do not have the troops needed to get the job done. The generals were right from the get go, it would u take 500,000 men to do the job, not 100K. We still need 500K troops, 20K is a drop in the bucket, either win the freakin thing or get the hell out. It is pretty apparent that we have no intentions on winning it though, and we have not the stomach for a draft, so why are we there. All we are doing is just getting more Americans killed.



Anyway, while we're on it, don't you have any thought on what a US pullout would do for our enemy?

We will make Iran more powerful, we have already done that. We will not be making any more terrorists though because they will be fighting each other. Iraq will delve into a civil war and they will split it into three countries. We will have created a lot of enemies, but is it any worse then now? We are making more enemies every day we are there.



They are viable, they are real. Do yo think they'll quit, or do you think that they will continue their stated mission of establishing islamic world dominance and spilling as much American blood as possible?
The factions we're fighting are not looking to just run out an invader and go on with their lives.

~Bang

The factions fighting care about power, that is all. They will continue to fight each other over there, and let them fight each other for that hell hole. Baghdad has been the hellhole since the advent of civilization. It has never been stable in that neck of the woods, and it never will be. Placing 20K troops there does nothing help the situation, listen to what Abazaid said. He said adding more troops would not change anything, and he was replaced for telling the truth. If we are going to win it, then win it, and listen to the god damn generals, they have not listened to them from day one, and they are still not listening to them!!!! It is Bush's way and that is it, he knows best. That is the problem with him, not only is he a moron,he is a moron with power and a cocky streak in him. A very dangerous combination, and I am sick of watching our country suffer because of this imbecile.

[Cskin]

Shouldn't we wait for Olberman to tell us how bad it was?
He did... he and Matthews slobbered all over the mention of Syria and Iran as if Bush announced we were attacking them at midnight tonight. :doh:

I just can't wait to catch Obermann's day by day account of the lack of progress for the new strategy... in which he will ignore the progress made in one neighborhood so that he could report on a disenchanted Suni throwing a rock at a Iraqi soldier in another. Liberal hack... a disgrace to journalist. Add Matthews to the mix as well... drooling over Obamma and commenting on his eloquence and mentioning his prospects in 08. Did Obamma share the democratic plan at last!!!! Hell no... he simply restated the democratic talking points and steered clear of articulating the democratic plan. Why? Because they don't have a plan... other than to say they would do things differently.

Vilsack was on Hannity... and Hannity asked him what the Dems would do... and he stammered and stuttered and put the focus back on Bush. Can a Defeat-O-Crat answer the question.... immediate withdraw from Iraq... as they keep proposing.... good for America and Iraq? And... what would Iraq look like in five years if we did just what the Defeat-o-crats are veiling?

[Bang]

What violence?

You mean people defending their country from an occupying force?

I'm sure if another country was here bombing you relatives and friends, you would also stand by idly.

I'm not seeing any "terrorism" here at home. Even if you consider 911 to be a terrorist act, terrorism still kills less americans than peanut allergies and vaccines.

Ever thought about that?


Gosh, you're right. we should just let them keep doing it! Let's get those damned peanut farmers and doctors instead! In all honesty, that was a lousy comparison. You're talking about a medical condition as opposed to premeditated large scale murder.

"Even if I consider 911 a terrorist act"..
In all candor, I don't even see the point in talking about it after that. Let me guess... WE cooked up and carried out 9/11 to push a political agenda and a family vendetta.

Your inability to recognize Islamic terrorism since the day you were born is hard to fathom, Do you not own a TV? Never read a newspaper?
It's not like it's hard to miss. it's been practically a daily occurence since I was old enough to read.
I guess for 40 years they've been trying to kick us out?
Is that why they bomb clubs full of Americans in Germany, France, and other places over the decades? Is that why they bombed a train full of commuters in Spain? Is that why they are at war in Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan, etc, etc.? Who invaded those places? Us? When the hell did we invade Sudan?
I know it's very hard to believe, but we're not bombing innocents.. yeah a few accidents have happened, but that happens in war. It's unfortunate. In fact, National geographic did a great hour on the entire Shock and Awe bombing campaign and showed the remarkable accuracy in which it was carried out... now, I know, the National Geo is just a shill for the right, but hey. they have nice photos, eh?
80% of their population turned out to vote. I wonder why? Because they hate us? I bet it has more to do with finally being given an opportunity to try to control their own lives as opposed to living in constant fear of those who had oppressed them (and still would like to)

Just off the top of my head...
Achille Lauro
Laucherbie Scotland
TWA flight 800
9-11
Countless bombings and hijackings of innocents worldwide.
Islamic terrorism has been going on for more than four decades. Daily. You can ignore it if you'd like. I don't think we can.

Here's the way I think I'll go about this.
You believe what you want.
In my mind, your assertions sound as ridiculous as you think mine are.
Such as it is, this conversation will go nowhere fast.

~Bang

[redskins4life234]

Is the speech uploaded somewhere on the internet? I had a basketball game during it, and would like to watch it.

[chomerics]

He did... he and Matthews slobbered all over the mention of Syria and Iran as if Bush announced we were attacking them at midnight tonight. :doh:

I just can't wait to catch Obermann's day by day account of the lack of progress for the new strategy... in which he will ignore the progress made in one neighborhood so that he could report on a disenchanted Suni throwing a rock at a Iraqi soldier in another. Liberal hack... a disgrace to journalist. Add Matthews to the mix as well... drooling over Obamma and commenting on his eloquence and mentioning his prospects in 08. Did Obamma share the democratic plan at last!!!! Hell no... he simply restated the democratic talking points and steered clear of articulating the democratic plan. Why? Because they don't have a plan... other than to say they would do things differently.

Vilsack was on Hannity... and Hannity asked him what the Dems would do... and he stammered and stuttered and put the focus back on Bush. Can a Defeat-O-Crat answer the question.... immediate withdraw from Iraq... as they keep proposing.... good for America and Iraq? And... what would Iraq look like in five years if we did just what the Defeat-o-crats are veiling?

Iraq is YOUR mess, it is YOUR parties mess. Lets ignore Al Qaeda and go after Saddam while making all of our buddies rich:doh: That was the repubs plan, now they left a freaking mess for everyone else to deal with, how quaint.

[Ken]

is there another term for it?
Yeah...

State sponsored terrorism.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Iraq is YOUR mess, it is YOUR parties mess. Lets ignore Al Qaeda and go after Saddam while making all of our buddies rich:doh: That was the repubs plan, now they left a freaking mess for everyone else to deal with, how quaint.


Just so we are clear

A democratic senate in October of 2002 gave Bush authorization for military force. Am I wrong?

[Bang]

The simple truth is that we do not have the troops needed to get the job done. The generals were right from the get go, it would u take 500,000 men to do the job, not 100K. We still need 500K troops, 20K is a drop in the bucket, either win the freakin thing or get the hell out. It is pretty apparent that we have no intentions on winning it though, and we have not the stomach for a draft, so why are we there. All we are doing is just getting more Americans killed.
That is one way of seeing it, I guess. I agree, we should fight to win. I hate fighting to stand still. It costs a lot of lives. War is the worst option of all, but when it comes, better go in all out and win fast.




We will make Iran more powerful, we have already done that. We will not be making any more terrorists though because they will be fighting each other. Iraq will delve into a civil war and they will split it into three countries. We will have created a lot of enemies, but is it any worse then now? We are making more enemies every day we are there.

Now, I'm surprised at you. The Iranian people have demonstrated in their last election that they do not care for how the hard-liners are running things. Much the same way we decided in November we don't like how the Republicans are running things.
Before 9-11 we had even opened up diplomatic channels with Iran for the first time since the hostage crisis. Progress was being made with their theocracy in power. As you know, the Iran is not some backwoods stone age country. the people there are educated and enjoy a fairly good standard of living. They don't want this any more than we do. I've long said in this forum thatI think a moderate open armed approach with Iran would be wise.
What we've done is give a voice to a wannabe despot, and his own people said "hey,, we don't like that." (For the record, I've also said that they do deserve nuclear energy, if we could only trust Aminidejad (sp) to not blow people up with it. Unfortunately I don't think we CAN trust him, and by their last election, I don't think they trust him either.



The factions fighting care about power, that is all. They will continue to fight each other over there, and let them fight each other for that hell hole..
except Al Qaida has repeatedly stated they want to kill as many Americans as they can. As I said, if we decide to stop fighting them, it is a HUGE risk to think they will stop fighting us. We've seen their resolve, and the results of it.

~Bang

[Ken]

Gosh, you're right. we should just let them keep doing it! Let's get those damned peanut farmers and doctors instead! In all honesty, that was a lousy comparison. You're talking about a medical condition as opposed to premeditated large scale murder.

"Even if I consider 911 a terrorist act"..
In all candor, I don't even see the point in talking about it after that. Let me guess... WE cooked up and carried out 9/11 to push a political agenda and a family vendetta.

Your inability to recognize Islamic terrorism since the day you were born is hard to fathom, Do you not own a TV? Never read a newspaper?
It's not like it's hard to miss. it's been practically a daily occurence since I was old enough to read.
I guess for 40 years they've been trying to kick us out?
Is that why they bomb clubs full of Americans in Germany, France, and other places over the decades? Is that why they are at war in Indonesia? Who invaded there?
I know it's very hard to believe, but we're not bombing innocents.. yeah a few accidents have happened, but that happens in war. It's unfortunate. In fact, National geographic did a great hour on the entire Shock and Awe bombing campaign and showed the remarkable accuracy in which it was carried out... now, I know, the National Geo is just a shill for the right, but hey. they have nice photos, eh?
80% of their population turned out to vote. I wonder why? Because they hate us? I bet it has more to do with finally being given an opportunity to try to control their own lives as opposed to living in constant fear of those who had oppressed them (and still would like to)

Just off the top of my head...
Achille Lauro
Laucherbie Scotland
TWA flight 800
9-11
Countless bombings and hijackings of innocents worldwide.
Islamic terrorism has been going on for more than four decades. Daily. You can ignore it if you'd like. I don't think we can.

Here's the way I think I'll go about this.
You believe what you want.
In my mind, your assertions sound as ridiculous as you think mine are.
Such as it is, this conversation will go nowhere fast.

~Bang
Bang,
I obviously know the comparison is rediculous, but it was accurate.

Everything you stated, and I mean everything, came from where?

Where did you hear it from? TV and History books. Correct? I did too. I also believed most of it until 911. It is called propaganda.

Do yourself a favor and watch Freedom to Facism. It is on Google video for free. If that doesn't make you rethink some things, I don't know what will.

I have researched way to much into way to many things to not see right through everything I thought I ever knew about this country.

I understand that my post sounds completely rediculous....I would have thought the same thing a few years ago. Do some research and be amazed.

[chomerics]

Just so we are clear

A democratic senate in October of 2002 gave Bush authorization for military force. Am I wrong?


Do you want me to refresh your memory Ish? The vote for WAR, was not a vote for war at all remember? It was a vote to give Bush the AUTHORITY to use troops to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Mind you, this vote was placed on the house floor two weeks before an election, and anyone who voted against it was pointed out as being soft on terror.

So lets not dig up the history of what actually happened, and just admit that is was the republican platform and plan to go to war with Iraq.

[Ken]

Is the speech uploaded somewhere on the internet? I had a basketball game during it, and would like to watch it.
It is on Drudgereport.com in it's entirety.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Do you want me to refresh your memory Ish? The vote for WAR, was not a vote for war at all remember? It was a vote to give Bush the AUTHORITY to use troops to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Mind you, this vote was placed on the house floor two weeks before an election, and anyone who voted against it was pointed out as being soft on terror.

So lets not dig up the history of what actually happened, and just admit that is was the republican platform and plan to go to war with Iraq.


Regardless, a Democratic controlled Senate gave the President authorization to use troops

Am I wrong? Or were they too cowardly and politcally calculating not to offer up opposition?

Lets see what they voted on

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&


SUMMARY AS OF:
10/11/2002--Passed Senate without amendment. (There are 2 other summaries)

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) 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.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

And who voted for it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[chomerics]

That is one way of seeing it, I guess. I agree, we should fight to win. I hate fighting to stand still. It costs a lot of lives. War is the worst option of all, but when it comes, better go in all out and win fast.

Agreed. . .



Now, I'm surprised at you. The Iranian people have demonstrated in their last election that they do not care for how the hard-liners are running things. Much the same way we decided in November we don't like how the Republicans are running things.
Before 9-11 we had even opened up diplomatic channels with Iran for the first time since the hostage crisis. Progress was being made with their theocracy in power. As you know, the Iran is not some backwoods stone age country. the people there are educated and enjoy a fairly good standard of living. They don't want this any more than we do. I've long said in this forum thatI think a moderate open armed approach with Iran would be wise.
What we've done is give a voice to a wannabe despot, and his own people said "hey,, we don't like that." (For the record, I've also said that they do deserve nuclear energy, if we could only trust Aminidejad (sp) to not blow people up with it. Unfortunately I don't think we CAN trust him, and by their last election, I don't think they trust him either.


I agree with you here as well. . .



except Al Qaida has repeatedly stated they want to kill as many Americans as they can. As I said, if we decide to stop fighting them, it is a HUGE risk to think they will stop fighting us. We've seen their resolve, and the results of it.

~Bang


Al Qaeda is not Iraq, there are two different things going on right now. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq, of course they are right now. But the group responsible for 9-11 is not what this war is about any more. IMHO, the longer we stay there, the more power we giver them in terms of recruits. Either place 500K troops there or get out. 2 choices, either win or leave. This petty 20K crap is just getting soldiers killed, and I am sick of it.

[Major Harris]

Yeah...

State sponsored terrorism.
oh boy.....

[SkinsHokieFan]

oh boy.....


Yea I made a long winded post about people I have met and how they want you and me dead

But its not worth talking to a guy like this about it. He'd brush it off as many head in the sand people do

[Bang]

Bang,
I obviously know the comparison is rediculous, but it was accurate.

Everything you stated, and I mean everything, came from where?

Where did you hear it from? TV and History books. Correct? I did too. I also believed most of it until 911. It is called propaganda.

Do yourself a favor and watch Freedom to Facism. It is on Google video for free. If that doesn't make you rethink some things, I don't know what will.

I have researched way to much into way to many things to not see right through everything I thought I ever knew about this country.

I understand that my post sounds completely rediculous....I would have thought the same thing a few years ago. Do some research and be amazed.

I've seen the videos. they've been very hard to miss over the last few years. (Believe it or not, I do have an open mind.. i am as mistrustful of our government as anyone, always have been. I was always taught to question.) So I did question ,i watched with open mind, and the answer I keep coming up with is that I tend to believe the guys who stood up and proudly proclaimed they did it.. and have continued to proudly proclaim they did it.

I mean, if you and i were standing together, and a third guy came up and hit you in the head, then laughed and said "I hit you in the head".. but some guy gave you a video with some sketchy 'evidence' that said I did it, would you think I did, or would you think it was the guy who said he did it and laughed afterwards?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the one that is real. I recognize you and I differ on this, and respectfully, we'll just have to disagree.
i know taking my stance lends folks to think one would be a warmongerer or some bloodthirsty jackoff who thinks it's all John Wayne... i am exactly the opposite. However, I recognize what I believe is the gravity of this ever escalating global violence. I fear for my son. In 8 years he'll be of military age. I lay awake at night sometimes worrying over what will happen then.
Some may take that as me thinking "better someone else's kid". But it's not that. I'd rather it be NO one's kids.. but the world doesn't always cooperate.

~Bang

[chomerics]

Regardless, a Democratic controlled Senate gave the President authorization to use troops

Am I wrong? Or were they too cowardly and politcally calculating not to offer up opposition?

Lets see what they voted on

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@D&summ2=m&


And who voted for it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Ish, was it a vote to go to war yes or no?

Did the vote take place 3 weeks before election time yes or no?

Was it a political vote to force the democrats to vote?

You can claim that the democrats were weak, and I agree with you, they had no power. But you can not claim that this was a democrat idea to invade Iraq and to overturn it. It is a complete joke to even insinuate it.


The republicans played politics with the war, and you know this. They knew we were invading Iraq, yet they never told the American people, or the democrats this. They lied to the American public about everything in the buildup to war, from the NIE to the Presidents speech, it was all politics to invade Iraq. Did democrats vote to give the president the power to use the military? Yes they did. It was BUSH, and the republicans who decided to invade Iraq though, that is something you can NOT deny.

The dems voted to give him the authority to use troops and force Saddam's hand to allow the weapons inspectors in. Bush used that power and invaded Iraq. That is in the books no matter how much you try and spin it

[chomerics]

I've seen the videos. they've been very hard to miss over the last few years. (Believe it or not, I do have an open mind.. i am as mistrustful of our government as anyone, always have been. I was always taught to question.) So I did question ,i watched with open mind, and the answer I keep coming up with is that I tend to believe the guys who stood up and proudly proclaimed they did it.. and have continued to proudly proclaim they did it.

I mean, if you and i were standing together, and a third guy came up and hit you in the head, then laughed and said "I hit you in the head".. but some guy gave you a video with some sketchy 'evidence' that said I did it, would you think I did, or would you think it was the guy who said he did it and laughed afterwards?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the one that is real. I recognize you and I differ on this, and respectfully, we'll just have to disagree.
i know taking my stance lends folks to think one would be a warmongerer or some bloodthirsty jackoff who thinks it's all John Wayne... i am exactly the opposite. However, I recognize what I believe is the gravity of this ever escalating global violence. I fear for my son. In 8 years he'll be of military age. I lay awake at night sometimes worrying over what will happen then.
Some may take that as me thinking "better someone else's kid". But it's not that. I'd rather it be NO one's kids.. but the world doesn't always cooperate.

~Bang

Bang, I for one do not think you are a war mongerer, I just disagree that 20K troops is the answer for Iraq. It just prolongs the misery. Either go in with everything you have, call up a draft and get 500K Americans entering Iraq in 1 year, or get out. Those are the only two options I see. Otherwise, it will just continue to spiral down to hell, and it will be left for the next administration to fix.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, was it a vote to go to war yes or no?

Did the vote take place 3 weeks before election time yes or no?

Was it a political vote to force the democrats to vote?

You can claim that the democrats were weak, and I agree with you, they had no power. But you can not claim that this was a democrat idea to invade Iraq and to overturn it. It is a complete joke to even insinuate it.



Just so I make sure I answer your questions

1)It was an authorization to use force. Force=bullets, bombs, missles and blood. I am not sure what else it could mean

2) Yes. Even more reason to either vote how you really feel and quit playing damn politics

3) Was it a D idea to invade? No? But was it a D controlled Senate which gave the Commander and Chief authorization to use force? Yes. It is in writing, black and white

My friend, it seems pretty clear what is in writing

The Democratic controlled Senate, whose duties include being the part of the legislative branch which takes up matters of international affairs, voted to give the President of the United States autorization to use force against Iraq

Thats the title of the bill. No amendments in a Democratic controlled Senate

They could have stopped it. They could have forced the President's hands with refusing to give any authorization

But they didn't. And now they are Monday morning Qb'ng their vote, which they controlled and could have stopped if they so chose. But they didn't

And there is no spin you can put on that.

So saying its "your party's war", when in fact a D controlled senate gave the president authorization to use armed force, thats what the bill says, its not about what is "meant" or "implied", is simply disengenuous when you look at who voted and how they voted

Read the bill. See who voted for it, and tell me that it was NOT an authorization, by a Democratic controlled Senate to use our troops in the manner which the President has. How you can claim they had no power when they were in the majority is beyond me

They controlled the commitees. They controlled the schedule of votes, they scheduled business

You don't want to give the President authority to invade, amend the damn bill. Change it to "Authorization to deploy troops within 1 mile of Iraq"

But they didn't. It was still an "Authorization to use force"

[Bang]

Al Qaeda is not Iraq, there are two different things going on right now. Is Al Qaeda in Iraq, of course they are right now. But the group responsible for 9-11 is not what this war is about any more. IMHO, the longer we stay there, the more power we giver them in terms of recruits. Either place 500K troops there or get out. 2 choices, either win or leave. This petty 20K crap is just getting soldiers killed, and I am sick of it.


I agree 20k is a band-aid on a bleeding artery. As I said, going in strong is the only way to go. I've been in plenty of fistfights, and the ones that I stood there with my dukes up like some boxer.. i always got my ass kicked.. the ones that i let fly with everything right out of the chute,, well, those I won.
I don;'t know if you recall, but one of our first debates on this subject, I explained why I think Iraq is more of a tactical move than anything to do with their involvement in 911. To summarize, we're going to war in a region vs an enemy with no national affiliation, uniform, or any organization as a conventional force. It's a hard war to fight. One of the first orders of battle is to secure a central base to operate from. Plus, eliminate the largest organized fighting force in the region, namely the Iraqi army. I think the rest of the justifications were simply a load of crap to give to a largely ignorant public to try to build public support and to try to get the UN on our side.
As i said then, you can't say "we have to fight, but we don't know who. we know the region they hail from, but it's a politically tricky region at best, so we'll have to tippy toe around a lot. We don't know when this will end, but we have to go."
No one would listen to that, even though that is essentially what it was.

I'm no fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him. I do not like the way they have handled this war. Rumsfeld ought to be brought up on charges for his absolute failure to establish a plan for post-invasion. In fact, there were contingency plans, and he refuse to even look at them.. I think he watched films of Americans liberating Paris, and thought that is what would happen. He went in woefully unprepared, and it's inexcusable.
But, the war is still a necessary fight, regardless of how bad they've screwed it up.

~Bang

[Bang]

Bang, I for one do not think you are a war mongerer, I just disagree that 20K troops is the answer for Iraq. It just prolongs the misery. Either go in with everything you have, call up a draft and get 500K Americans entering Iraq in 1 year, or get out. Those are the only two options I see. Otherwise, it will just continue to spiral down to hell, and it will be left for the next administration to fix.

Ha! I know that. You're a smart cookie even if we disagree on a few things.
Some aren't. Some react before thinking. (And no I don't necessarily mean anyone else in particular either :laugh: )

~Bang

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ha! I know that. You're a smart cookie even if we disagree on a few things.
Some aren't. Some react before thinking. (And no I don't necessarily mean anyone else in particular either :laugh: )

~Bang


I do :laugh:

[cadets08]

Ah I should have guessed a Chom thread ;)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ah I should have guessed a Chom thread ;)


These are the interesting ones. Despite the fact that he and I completely disagree on this, the man is informed

Throw in Sarge and AFC and Kilmer17, as well as Larry and Predicto, and we'd have ourselves a nice party tonight :laugh:

[DjTj]

Iraq is YOUR mess, it is YOUR parties mess. Lets ignore Al Qaeda and go after Saddam while making all of our buddies rich:doh: That was the repubs plan, now they left a freaking mess for everyone else to deal with, how quaint.That's a partisan response to a partisan post, so I guess it's fair, but Iraq is OUR mess. The soldiers dying over there aren't Republicans or Democrats, they're AMERICANS. The money being spent is OUR taxes. Bush is OUR President and the Democrats are in charge of OUR Congress.

I actually sat in the office of a Democratic Senator in the summer of 2002 as her newly hired speechwriter wrote her first major statement about Iraq. I was as disappointed as anyone when she voted for the Iraq Resolution along with the rest of the DLC ... it was a calculated political move, and even worse, it was a failed political move at a time when the nation really needed them to stand up.

But at this point, it doesn't matter how we got there ... we have to deal with it where we are now, not where we came from.

That is one way of seeing it, I guess. I agree, we should fight to win. I hate fighting to stand still. It costs a lot of lives. War is the worst option of all, but when it comes, better go in all out and win fast.
The unfortunate problem we have with this war though is that it isn't a war in the classical sense. We don't have Axis Powers to fight; we don't even have a Viet Cong to fight ... we're fighting an idea: Islamic Fundamentalism; and we're fighting a phenomenon: the War on Terror ... it's not a matter of identifying your enemy and going all out because identifying the enemy is no easy task.

except Al Qaida has repeatedly stated they want to kill as many Americans as they can. As I said, if we decide to stop fighting them, it is a HUGE risk to think they will stop fighting us. We've seen their resolve, and the results of it.
I don't think pulling out of Iraq would be stopping the fight against Al Qaeda. We can still hit them in Afghanistan or Somalia, and we can still leave a military force in Iraq that actually hunts terrorists rather than serving as police.

I think Bush's conservative instincts were right when he spoke out against nation building in 2000 ... it's really the worst of liberal tendencies to think that we can go into a country and tell them how to set up their government. We need to take a step back and let the Iraqis find their own way. I really think that a gradual pullout is the only real possibility ... I don't necessarily disagree with some more troops now as we work out the logistics, but I really don't see any other way Iraq can stabilize without Americans leaving and allowing some of the factions in Iraq to fight each other - how can any Iraqi leader emerge with the respect of the Iraqi people while Americans hold all the power?

Withdrawing might not look like victory, but even the Fall of Saigon has managed to come full circle with the recent entry of Vietnam into the WTO and the approval of normal trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. :2cents:

[Ken]

I've seen the videos. they've been very hard to miss over the last few years. (Believe it or not, I do have an open mind.. i am as mistrustful of our government as anyone, always have been. I was always taught to question.) So I did question ,i watched with open mind, and the answer I keep coming up with is that I tend to believe the guys who stood up and proudly proclaimed they did it.. and have continued to proudly proclaim they did it.

I mean, if you and i were standing together, and a third guy came up and hit you in the head, then laughed and said "I hit you in the head".. but some guy gave you a video with some sketchy 'evidence' that said I did it, would you think I did, or would you think it was the guy who said he did it and laughed afterwards?
Sometimes the obvious answer is the one that is real. I recognize you and I differ on this, and respectfully, we'll just have to disagree.
i know taking my stance lends folks to think one would be a warmongerer or some bloodthirsty jackoff who thinks it's all John Wayne... i am exactly the opposite. However, I recognize what I believe is the gravity of this ever escalating global violence. I fear for my son. In 8 years he'll be of military age. I lay awake at night sometimes worrying over what will happen then.
Some may take that as me thinking "better someone else's kid". But it's not that. I'd rather it be NO one's kids.. but the world doesn't always cooperate.

~Bang
Bang,
I appreciate your response.

I understand your viewpoint as well. I have two girls of my own and another on the way. I really question why I am doing the 3rd sometimes with all that is wrong with this world.

You sound like me a few years ago. I would see the video tapes pop up with Bin Laden (or Aladin as I affectionately refer to him as) and see that the news would always say that the Pentagon was verifying the validity of the tape. I never thought twice about it and assumed that the tape was authentic. A co-worker of mine told me to find him an article that says the video tape was proven to be authentic. I couldn't do it. They never report that the tapes are indeed authentic.

Most of the Bin Laden tapes have also been proven to be very sketchy at best. Most likely psysop.

In talking with many people about real issues involving politics and really anything outside of American Idol, it is easy to understand why most peole (not saying you) don't notice the programming that is going on.

I know the agenda, and I know most things before they happen. Latest example being the 2nd carrier group being deployed, it was reported last week but you had to search for it. Now it is revealed during the presidents speach as if it is just happened today.

Hey, we can disagree here. I know I can't change your mind and you can't change mine. I just feel obligated as an American to try and tell people the illegal activities that are going on all around us. It both sickens me and frightens me.

:cheers:

[chomerics]

I agree 20k is a band-aid on a bleeding artery. As I said, going in strong is the only way to go. I've been in plenty of fistfights, and the ones that I stood there with my dukes up like some boxer.. i always got my ass kicked.. the ones that i let fly with everything right out of the chute,, well, those I won.
I don;'t know if you recall, but one of our first debates on this subject, I explained why I think Iraq is more of a tactical move than anything to do with their involvement in 911. To summarize, we're going to war in a region vs an enemy with no national affiliation, uniform, or any organization as a conventional force. It's a hard war to fight. One of the first orders of battle is to secure a central base to operate from. Plus, eliminate the largest organized fighting force in the region, namely the Iraqi army. I think the rest of the justifications were simply a load of crap to give to a largely ignorant public to try to build public support and to try to get the UN on our side.
As i said then, you can't say "we have to fight, but we don't know who. we know the region they hail from, but it's a politically tricky region at best, so we'll have to tippy toe around a lot. We don't know when this will end, but we have to go."
No one would listen to that, even though that is essentially what it was.

I'm no fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him. I do not like the way they have handled this war. Rumsfeld ought to be brought up on charges for his absolute failure to establish a plan for post-invasion. In fact, there were contingency plans, and he refuse to even look at them.. I think he watched films of Americans liberating Paris, and thought that is what would happen. He went in woefully unprepared, and it's inexcusable.
But, the war is still a necessary fight, regardless of how bad they've screwed it up.

~Bang

Again, we are pretty much on the same page here Bang. I agree with most of what you said, I am just tired of watching Americans die over there with things only getting worse.

I try to listen to what the generals say, because after all, they are the ones who know the military. Well, Skowcroft and Shinseki both said that an invasion of Iraq would require 400K+ troops, and we blew it. We ignored them and went in with 100K and thought we could get it done. They were completely wrong, and the generals were right. Now, Abizaid says adding more troops only puts more people in harms way and wont change anything, to that I agree with. What happens? Abizaid is no longer head of Iraq.

I agree that something should be done, but I do not think this country has the stomach for it. I think we should have a draft and place 500K troops there and clean up the god dam mess we've made, but we will not go that route. If that is the case, and we are not willing to do what it takes to win the war, then we should leave and chalk it up for experience, and not lose any more lives over there. If we send 20K troops, what does it accomplish?

[chomerics]

Just so I make sure I answer your questions

1)It was an authorization to use force. Force=bullets, bombs, missles and blood. I am not sure what else it could mean

Come on Ish, you know exactly what I am talking about. Bush said he needed to force Saddams hand, it was no a vote for war, but to allow Bush to use forc if deemed necessary.


The text of our bipartisan resolution is clear and it is strong. The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States. In Baghdad, the regime will know that full compliance with all U.N. Security demands is the only choice, and that time remaining for that choice is limited. . .

None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-7.html


or how about this one. . .




American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat. By supporting the resolution now before them, members of Congress will send a clear message to Saddam: His only choice is to fully comply with the demands of the world. And the time for that choice is limited. Supporting this resolution will also show the resolve of the United States, and will help spur the United Nations to act.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html



2) Yes. Even more reason to either vote how you really feel and quit playing damn politics

They were lied to by the president on the threat level of Iraq. What did you expect them to do? You have 9-11, then you have a vote to allow the president to use force against Iraq, it was done three weeks before an election. They were playing politics with our soldiers, and it is atrocious. They used the vote in their campaign ads to garner more power. It was utterly despicable.



3) Was it a D idea to invade? No? But was it a D controlled Senate which gave the Commander and Chief authorization to use force? Yes. It is in writing, black and white

My friend, it seems pretty clear what is in writing

The Democratic controlled Senate, whose duties include being the part of the legislative branch which takes up matters of international affairs, voted to give the President of the United States autorization to use force against Iraq

Thats the title of the bill. No amendments in a Democratic controlled Senate

They could have stopped it. They could have forced the President's hands with refusing to give any authorization

But the president said he needed to have the authority to force Saddams hand and allow the weapons inspectors in. And you know what, it worked. The only problem was that they did not find any WMDs.



But they didn't. And now they are Monday morning Qb'ng their vote, which they controlled and could have stopped if they so chose. But they didn't

And there is no spin you can put on that.

So saying its "your party's war", when in fact a D controlled senate gave the president authorization to use armed force, thats what the bill says, its not about what is "meant" or "implied", is simply disengenuous when you look at who voted and how they voted

Read the bill. See who voted for it, and tell me that it was NOT an authorization, by a Democratic controlled Senate to use our troops in the manner which the President has. How you can claim they had no power when they were in the majority is beyond me

They controlled the commitees. They controlled the schedule of votes, they scheduled business

You don't want to give the President authority to invade, amend the damn bill. Change it to "Authorization to deploy troops within 1 mile of Iraq"

But they didn't. It was still an "Authorization to use force"

Ish, are you serious, you are claiming that the bill was not political in nature? I agree that they should have done something, and I was pissed when they voted for it, but the bill was to force saddams hand, not go to war. War was the repubs agenda, which is what I stated to begin with.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, are you serious, you are claiming that the bill was not political in nature? I agree that they should have done something, and I was pissed when they voted for it, but the bill was to force saddams hand, not go to war. War was the repubs agenda, which is what I stated to begin with.


Seriously, your spin is amazing

Read the title of the bill, and the text

"Authorization to use force"

There were no stipulations. No amendments. A Democratic controlled Senate took the house bill and voted for it with over 2/3 of the chamber voting "yea"

That is as clear as day. And out 50 D's in the chamber (and 1 Independent) only 22 of them voted against it

If they didn't want a war, it could have been stopped. "Authorization to use force" doesn't imply anything, except to use force

[chomerics]

That's a partisan response to a partisan post, so I guess it's fair, but Iraq is OUR mess. The soldiers dying over there aren't Republicans or Democrats, they're AMERICANS. The money being spent is OUR taxes. Bush is OUR President and the Democrats are in charge of OUR Congress.

I actually sat in the office of a Democratic Senator in the summer of 2002 as her newly hired speechwriter wrote her first major statement about Iraq. I was as disappointed as anyone when she voted for the Iraq Resolution along with the rest of the DLC ... it was a calculated political move, and even worse, it was a failed political move at a time when the nation really needed them to stand up.

But at this point, it doesn't matter how we got there ... we have to deal with it where we are now, not where we came from.

The unfortunate problem we have with this war though is that it isn't a war in the classical sense. We don't have Axis Powers to fight; we don't even have a Viet Cong to fight ... we're fighting an idea: Islamic Fundamentalism; and we're fighting a phenomenon: the War on Terror ... it's not a matter of identifying your enemy and going all out because identifying the enemy is no easy task.

I don't think pulling out of Iraq would be stopping the fight against Al Qaeda. We can still hit them in Afghanistan or Somalia, and we can still leave a military force in Iraq that actually hunts terrorists rather than serving as police.

I think Bush's conservative instincts were right when he spoke out against nation building in 2000 ... it's really the worst of liberal tendencies to think that we can go into a country and tell them how to set up their government. We need to take a step back and let the Iraqis find their own way. I really think that a gradual pullout is the only real possibility ... I don't necessarily disagree with some more troops now as we work out the logistics, but I really don't see any other way Iraq can stabilize without Americans leaving and allowing some of the factions in Iraq to fight each other - how can any Iraqi leader emerge with the respect of the Iraqi people while Americans hold all the power?

Withdrawing might not look like victory, but even the Fall of Saigon has managed to come full circle with the recent entry of Vietnam into the WTO and the approval of normal trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. :2cents:

Great post as usual Dj. . . even if it did call me out for being partisan ;) No, say it aint so :D

[chomerics]

Seriously, your spin is amazing

Read the title of the bill, and the text

"Authorization to use force"

There were no stipulations. No amendments. A Democratic controlled Senate took the house bill and voted for it with over 2/3 of the chamber voting "yea"

That is as clear as day. And out 50 D's in the chamber (and 1 Independent) only 22 of them voted against it

If they didn't want a war, it could have been stopped. "Authorization to use force" doesn't imply anything, except to use force

Ish, I am not spinning anything, did you read what Bush said? Do you remember what the vote was supposed to be for?

I posted the links of is speech where he states that he needs the authority to force Saddam's hand. IT was not a vote to go to war, Bush stated that in his words, and you are ignoring it. It was to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in, and it worked. . . he allowed them in.

You can say they were snookered by the right into voting for it, which they were, but it was not a vote for war with Iraq. That was never how it was presented to Congress and the Senate.

[jrockster21]

Well, he did take full blame for everything that has gone wrong. I didn't expect him to come out and say that at all. I applaud him for that.

That's a cute trick. Have no accountability for anything, ever. Then, when things REALLY get hairy, you take some responsibility for what's going on, and people applaud you.

Not meant as a shot at you, WVU, just a general observation.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, I am not spinning anything, did you read what Bush said? Do you remember what the vote was supposed to be for?

I posted the links of is speech where he states that he needs the authority to force Saddam's hand. IT was not a vote to go to war, Bush stated that in his words, and you are ignoring it. It was to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in, and it worked. . . he allowed them in.


And I posted the actual bill.

Now read it slowly, twice

What does it do?

It authorizes the executive to use force against Iraq. It was never amended from the house version

The D's in the Senate never had to bring it up for a vote if it was a course they were not prepared to support and stand behind

[chomerics]

And I posted the actual bill.

Now read it slowly, twice

What does it do?

It authorizes the executive to use force against Iraq. It was never amended from the house version

The D's in the Senate never had to bring it up for a vote if it was a course they were not prepared to support and stand behind

yes, I know what the bill says, and I know what it does. You are not admitting, or even acknowledging that it was presented to both the American public and to the Senate not as a vote for war, but to force Saddams hand to allow the weapon inspectors in.

Do you agree that it was presented to BOTH the American public, and to the Senate that this authority was needed to force Saddams hand and allow the weapons inspectors in?

[DjTj]

And I posted the actual bill.

Now read it slowly, twice

What does it do?

It authorizes the executive to use force against Iraq. It was never amended from the house version

The D's in the Senate never had to bring it up for a vote if it was a course they were not prepared to support and stand behindI guess since I called chomerics partisan, I'll defend him a little bit.

The Democrats made a political calculation with the Iraq War Resolution. They knew a lot of Democratic Senators were in trouble, and Tim Johnson and Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan and Mary Landrieu had to vote for it before the election. Not that there's anything wrong with that - it was what their constituents wanted, after all.

I think when they brought it to the floor they thought they could pass a version with some more restrictive language, but they just didn't quite have the votes.

Senators like Kerry and Feinstein and Daschle and Clinton and Schumer and other Democrats who didn't really HAVE to vote for the bill I think honestly believed that it would help the inspectors do their jobs, and they didn't think the move to war would happen so quickly.

They weren't expecting that to be their last word on the issue, but of course when they lost control of both houses in that election, it was the last time they had a chance to weigh in.

If they had voted against it and lost the elections, the Republicans would have just passed it in 2003. They made a political calculation, hoped that they could save the election, but they gambled and lost ... even worse, it bit them in their flip-flopping ass again in 2004.

I look at that vote as one of the biggest political blunders of recent history, but that's what it was: politics ... and arguing about that vote now is nothing but politics - it has no bearing on the situation we're in or what we should do about it.

[chomerics]

I look at that vote as one of the biggest political blunders of recent history, but that's what it was: politics ... and arguing about that vote now is nothing but politics - it has no bearing on the situation we're in or what we should do about it.

True, it was politics. It was also the republicans playing politics with war, which I have yet seen anyone admit.

[herrmag]

True, it was politics. It was also the republicans playing politics with war, which I have yet seen anyone admit.


While I agree, the Dem's played politics as well. How you can blame one goat, I don't understand. They are both culpable in their own way. To say the Dem's are scott free in this whole Iraq fiasco is not truthful. And, as I've previously stated, I had misconceptions about Iraq prior to our invasion as well, so don't assume I'm taking the moral high ground.

[DjTj]

True, it was politics. It was also the republicans playing politics with war, which I have yet seen anyone admit. Well on the Republican side it was more playing war with politics ... the Democrats were worried about votes and power, but Bush and Rumsfeld were worried about planning an invasion. The Democrats were playing politics. The Republicans were playing war.

But like I said, whose fault it was doesn't affect anything about the current situation. We're stuck with Bush as President and now a Democratic Congress for the next two years. We have to figure out the best course of action ... pointing fingers won't help us do that.

[chomerics]

While I agree, the Dem's played politics as well. How you can blame one goat, I don't understand. They are both culpable in their own way. To say the Dem's are scott free in this whole Iraq fiasco is not truthful. And, as I've previously stated, I had misconceptions about Iraq prior to our invasion as well, so don't assume I'm taking the moral high ground.

I am not saying they should get off scott free, (where did that phrase come from BTW? etymology anyone) I hold their feet to the fire for their vote. But the initial vote was to give Bush the power needed to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in. The vote was not presented as a vote for war. It was to allow bush to make the decision.

Yes, it was a HORRIBLE idea, and a bad vote, but that was what it was about. It was not like the Senate sat down and said we are going to invade Iraq. They were forced into a corner by the repubs and they blinked. Blinking was their fault, but the repubs are the ones who wanted it, not the dems.

[chomerics]

Well on the Republican side it was more playing war with politics ... the Democrats were worried about votes and power, but Bush and Rumsfeld were worried about planning an invasion. The Democrats were playing politics. The Republicans were playing war.

But like I said, whose fault it was doesn't affect anything about the current situation. We're stuck with Bush as President and now a Democratic Congress for the next two years. We have to figure out the best course of action ... pointing fingers won't help us do that.

Agreed on both accounts. The problem is that there is no good solution, only to pull out or to be targets, not a good choice if you ask me. I think they should leave it to the Iraqis to figure out. But hey, who am I to judge ;)

[herrmag]

I am not saying they should get off scott free, (where did that phrase come from BTW? etymology anyone) I hold their feet to the fire for their vote. But the initial vote was to give Bush the power needed to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors in. The vote was not presented as a vote for war. It was to allow bush to make the decision.

They didn't think that far ahead? Or are you saying the Repub's outsmarted them? Either way, as an INDIVIDUAL, if they disagreed with the possibility of invasion, the individual representatives should've acted as such. Individuals. Lives were at stake. Another reason why I generally lose my mind and try to avoid political discussions (although I get enticed often ;) ). I hate the "TEAM" mentality.


Yes, it was a HORRIBLE idea, and a bad vote, but that was what it was about. It was not like the Senate sat down and said we are going to invade Iraq. They were forced into a corner by the repubs and they blinked. Blinking was their fault, but the repubs are the ones who wanted it, not the dems.


Agreed on both accounts. The problem is that there is no good solution, only to pull out or to be targets, not a good choice if you ask me. I think they should leave it to the Iraqis to figure out. But hey, who am I to judge ;)

My opinion at this point is on the opposite side of yours. Leave Iraq in disarray, you leave another possibility to allow the creation of another terrorist state that is more dangerous than when Saddam reigned (which I believe, at least as far as our country is concerned, WASN'T a terrorist state).

P.S. My typing ablility, tonight at least, is weakened.

[skinfan13]

for the exact reason he said. Doing so would make the current violence look like a walk in the park. It would embolden our enemy, and do nothing but strengthen his resolve to finish HIS war.. even if we pretend ours is finished.

Islamic terrorism on Americans and other westerners would not stop. Likely would escalate.

ever seen a guy who tries to be the "big man" in a fistfight? He may keep his pride by not fighting, but he ends up beaten and bloody more often than not. Guys who walk away after a fight has already begun end up getting punched in the back of the head over and over again.

I also have never ever in my entire life seen a guy gain respect by walking away. Maybe on TV..In reality his enemy only views him with more scorn, and more often than not, will increase his attacks.

~Bang not to mention that the other side will,

a) see this as a defeat for america. us backing out only verifys to them that we see it that way too.

b) see this as a victory for them. victory emboldens combatants. lets not embolden the crazies please.

[luckydevil]

That's a partisan response to a partisan post, so I guess it's fair, but Iraq is OUR mess. The soldiers dying over there aren't Republicans or Democrats, they're AMERICANS. The money being spent is OUR taxes. Bush is OUR President and the Democrats are in charge of OUR Congress.

I actually sat in the office of a Democratic Senator in the summer of 2002 as her newly hired speechwriter wrote her first major statement about Iraq. I was as disappointed as anyone when she voted for the Iraq Resolution along with the rest of the DLC ... it was a calculated political move, and even worse, it was a failed political move at a time when the nation really needed them to stand up.

But at this point, it doesn't matter how we got there ... we have to deal with it where we are now, not where we came from.

The unfortunate problem we have with this war though is that it isn't a war in the classical sense. We don't have Axis Powers to fight; we don't even have a Viet Cong to fight ... we're fighting an idea: Islamic Fundamentalism; and we're fighting a phenomenon: the War on Terror ... it's not a matter of identifying your enemy and going all out because identifying the enemy is no easy task.

I don't think pulling out of Iraq would be stopping the fight against Al Qaeda. We can still hit them in Afghanistan or Somalia, and we can still leave a military force in Iraq that actually hunts terrorists rather than serving as police.

I think Bush's conservative instincts were right when he spoke out against nation building in 2000 ... it's really the worst of liberal tendencies to think that we can go into a country and tell them how to set up their government. We need to take a step back and let the Iraqis find their own way. I really think that a gradual pullout is the only real possibility ... I don't necessarily disagree with some more troops now as we work out the logistics, but I really don't see any other way Iraq can stabilize without Americans leaving and allowing some of the factions in Iraq to fight each other - how can any Iraqi leader emerge with the respect of the Iraqi people while Americans hold all the power?

Withdrawing might not look like victory, but even the Fall of Saigon has managed to come full circle with the recent entry of Vietnam into the WTO and the approval of normal trade relations between the U.S. and Vietnam. Sometimes you have to take a step back to take two steps forward. :2cents:

damn good post DjTj

[Chief skin]

We have spent over 3000 lives and billions of dollars, time to stop the bleeding. Bush and his buddies lied us into this mess had their chance to get it right and and 4 years laster he admits he screwed it up. NO MORE

[Kilmer17]

Anyone have the list of Senators and Congressman (on both sides) who have stated within the last couple of years that MORE troops were needed, that are now saying they dont support sending more?

[jrockster21]

Anyone have the list of Senators and Congressman (on both sides) who have stated within the last couple of years that MORE troops were needed, that are now saying they dont support sending more?


Here's a link to whatever your heart desires. (http://www.google.com)

[Popeman38]

Agreed on both accounts. The problem is that there is no good solution, only to pull out or to be targets, not a good choice if you ask me. I think they should leave it to the Iraqis to figure out. But hey, who am I to judge ;)
Wow, how the story swings when the power shifts. Just two months ago the Rep were stating that there were only 2 possible ways to handle Iraq (don't flame me for the phrases, I use them to illustrate the point):

1) stay the course = win

2) cut and run= defeat

Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped:

1) cut and run = win

2) stay the course = defeat

Now, if this does not illustrate the problems with the two party, partisan hack system we have, nothing can. We, as a country, need to pull our heads out of our ***** and start running this country for the benefit of (are you ready for this?) the American people. Let's go back and examine the way this country was founded. And then we can right the ship and govern following the guidlines spelled out for us by the framers.
Very simple. I don't ask for much

[Kilmer17]

Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative?

[Buford]

Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative?


I believe they said that if you have a choice between no plan, and a bad plan. It doesn't mean you have to go with the bad plan.

seriously, I think everybody from the Dems to the Smiths and Brownbacks are asking "Why should we believe you this time?" and "What are 20K troops going to do when you need hundreds of thousands more?"

If American lives are just buffers for the President to see if his plan "might" work. Then so be it. He;'s the President. He can choose to do that.

[Kilmer17]

It's very easy to simply denounce any plan as bad without ever going out on a limb and offering an alternative.

I dont know if this is a good plan or not, but I do know he's the only one offering a plan at all.

Ignoring the cut and run idea of course.

[Buford]

Its also ok to say that you HAVE to go with the only plan if its awful. eh?

Well, we don't really have any good ideas, so we should just send more troops in there, so more can die. Hell, they're only numbers right?

Why should we believe this will work when similiar things haven't? Raising by 20K is only bringing it back up to previous levels. Everybody knows that the minute we leave (which evenutally will have to happen) its all going to start back up.

I guess our goals could be waiting 2 years so you can blame whoever is the next President.

[Kilmer17]

"I guess our goals could be waiting 2 years so you can blame whoever is the next President."

It worked for Clinton.

Those saying they dont support this are basing that solely on their reading of polls. I dont think any of those opposed have any idea whether this is a good idea or not, or have any clue what WOULD be a good idea.

[Prosperity]

It's very easy to simply denounce any plan as bad without ever going out on a limb and offering an alternative.

I dont know if this is a good plan or not, but I do know he's the only one offering a plan at all.

Ignoring the cut and run idea of course.

It makes it really easy to say he is the only one with a plan when you can ignore the other major option.

[Kilmer17]

It makes it really easy to say he is the only one with a plan when you can ignore the other major option.


What option? Leaving?

I'd be pleased as punch to hear those opposing Bush to come out and say that. But they wont, they just continue saying "Bush is wrong". And why not, the press says it daily, and people believe it now.

If there is a 3rd option, Id love to hear it from a politician.

[Prosperity]

Even if you want to ignore the option of leaving (which at this point is the most cost effective option) Bush still has to be blamed, and be blamed continuously for this. So the next dumb ass that tries to take this country to a useless war will know that there are political consequences.

[chomerics]

They didn't think that far ahead? Or are you saying the Repub's outsmarted them? Either way, as an INDIVIDUAL, if they disagreed with the possibility of invasion, the individual representatives should've acted as such. Individuals. Lives were at stake. Another reason why I generally lose my mind and try to avoid political discussions (although I get enticed often ;) ). I hate the "TEAM" mentality.

The vote was what? 78-22 if I recall correctly. Yes, I do blame the democrats for not putting up a fight, but think back to that period, did they have a choice? If they were up for election they HAD to vote yes, otherwise they would have been voted out of power. That was the reality of the situation. The vote was put before the Senate three weeks before an election because they knew they could get it passed. They also knew how to frame the argument, to only invade as a "last resort" if Saddam didn't comply. Well, Saddam complied, he allowed out inspectors in, the UN didn't want us to go in and we went in anyways. That is what the reality of the situation was.

The republicans in power used politics to create the Iraq war, because they knew they could. 9-11 gave them the vehicle they needed to promote their agenda, which was of course war in Iraq. To insinuate the Democrats had anything to do with Iraq is a joke, they were forced into a corner, and acted like a bunch of scared rabbits. At the time though, there was nothing they could have done, because voting against it would have been a political death nail. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton et all were all looking at the 04 race and they did not want to come off as soft on terrorism, so they voted for it. It was the wrong vote, and it cost them the election in 04, but it was also a vote which was forced by the repubs to get what they wanted, war with Iraq.



My opinion at this point is on the opposite side of yours. Leave Iraq in disarray, you leave another possibility to allow the creation of another terrorist state that is more dangerous than when Saddam reigned (which I believe, at least as far as our country is concerned, WASN'T a terrorist state).

P.S. My typing ablility, tonight at least, is weakened.

What is Iraq right now? Is it not a terrorist state? Seriously, how worse can it be? If anything, we would allow them to group and take out their camps and infiltrate them that way. It is a lot easier then what we have now by a long shot.

[Midnight Judges]

Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative?

Phased withdraw, partition, immediate troop removal. Take your pick.

[chomerics]

Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped:

1) cut and run = win

2) stay the course = defeat

You follow one liners and catch phrases very well I see :doh:

What does staying there accomplish? What does 20K more troops accomplish? Heck, Abazaid just said that a troop increase would not change the situation. Why should I believe Bush instead of him? Lest face it, Bush's track record on predicting the future is piss poor at best, and everything he says the opposite happens. I have called him Sadim, the anti Midas. Instead of touching everything and turning it to gold, everything Bush touches turns to :pooh:. He has a history and a track record of doing this. Why should I believe him now? He has failed every step of the way, and his own pigheadedness got us into this mess, why the hell should we listen to him now? because he is the president???

I used this analogy before, but how many times does your 16 year old kid get to smash up your car before you take the keys away from him? 6 times? 10? When do you say you can not drive any more? All we are doing now is giving the keys back to the 16 year old, and giving him a bigger engine to drive, not a wise decision.

:2cents:

[Popeman38]

You follow one liners and catch phrases very well I see :doh:

What does staying there accomplish? What does 20K more troops accomplish? Heck, Abazaid just said that a troop increase would not change the situation. Why should I believe Bush instead of him? Lest face it, Bush's track record on predicting the future is piss poor at best, and everything he says the opposite happens. I have called him Sadim, the anti Midas. Instead of touching everything and turning it to gold, everything Bush touches turns to :pooh:. He has a history and a track record of doing this. Why should I believe him now? He has failed every step of the way, and his own pigheadedness got us into this mess, why the hell should we listen to him now? because he is the president???

I used this analogy before, but how many times does your 16 year old kid get to smash up your car before you take the keys away from him? 6 times? 10? When do you say you can not drive any more? All we are doing now is giving the keys back to the 16 year old, and giving him a bigger engine to drive, not a wise decision.

:2cents:
Chom, my post was simply attempting to open up a sane discourse for any that wished to chat on alternatives to the two party system. I neither promoted one view or derided the other. I simply pointed out the obvious: when one is in power the other witches and moans about how horrible the other is. When it changes, they do the same things only reversed. Not one person in the elected arena has offered a solution that will actually accomplish anything other than riling the other side up. I am sick and tired of the partisan hacks on both sides. Bush has angered me more in the last week than he has in the last six years. And I am simply to far off from the Dem lines that I find myself so far in the middle that I am conmsidered a nut job. Proof that this country has been polarized as far as it can be. The next logical step on the polarization scale is civil war.....

[chomerics]

Chom, my post was simply attempting to open up a sane discourse for any that wished to chat on alternatives to the two party system. I neither promoted one view or derided the other. I simply pointed out the obvious: when one is in power the other witches and moans about how horrible the other is. When it changes, they do the same things only reversed. Not one person in the elected arena has offered a solution that will actually accomplish anything other than riling the other side up. I am sick and tired of the partisan hacks on both sides. Bush has angered me more in the last week than he has in the last six years. And I am simply to far off from the Dem lines that I find myself so far in the middle that I am conmsidered a nut job. Proof that this country has been polarized as far as it can be. The next logical step on the polarization scale is civil war.....

If you automatically dismiss an idea because it comes from the left, OR the right then you are being partisan. I TRY not to be, as well as I know you do too. I understand the trepidation you have about the political landscape right now, but I also know why it is so polarized. I look to nobody but our leader, and what he has done to divide this country to promote his agenda. At some point, people became republicans and democrats, and not Americans, and that comes from the leadership.

When you have the president of our country misrepresenting the other side and telling people that siding with the democrats is siding with the enemy it hurts our country. When you have a broadcaster on Fox News calling Kennedy a "hostile enemy" it hurts our country. When you have the VP telling people that we will be attacked if the dems gain power, it hurts our country. Are the democrats the end all to beat all? Heck no, but they are light years ahead of the republicans in terms of doing what is right for our country.

You mention civil war, yes, that is what it has come to. We have a leader that would rather delve this country into a civil war then lose power, and his grip on DC. That is a scary thought, and it should make you re-examine your position and who actually represents the values you believe in.

:2cents:

[Kilmer17]

Phased withdraw, partition, immediate troop removal. Take your pick.


All of which fall under the "cut and run" choice.

Which of these does Hillary support?

Or Hagel?

Or Brownback?

Or any of the others that came out immediately last night?

[Popeman38]

If you automatically dismiss an idea because it comes from the left, OR the right then you are being partisan. I TRY not to be, as well as I know you do too. I understand the trepidation you have about the political landscape right now, but I also know why it is so polarized. I look to nobody but our leader, and what he has done to divide this country to promote his agenda. At some point, people became republicans and democrats, and not Americans, and that comes from the leadership.
I don't automatically dismiss anything. But the way I see it, the Rep have become the Dems of 30 years ago, and the Dems have become socialists (generally speaking, and please do not read a bias into this). Look at the amount of money and government the Reps have invested in the last 6 years. Disgusting. But the Dems have only responded with initiatives that look a lot like what is offered in France. Guarenteed living wages, healthcare, aged care, and moral relativism. These are things that I do not stand for or believe in. The dividing started long before W took office. To place the polarization at his feet is to absolve the institution of the fault. If W had never run for office, the same polarization would have taken place because you and I both know the highest ranking D/R is just a figurehead for the party.

You mention civil war, yes, that is what it has come to. We have a leader that would rather delve this country into a civil war then lose power, and his grip on DC. That is a scary thought, and it should make you re-examine your position and who actually represents the values you believe in.
:2cents:
Chom, the President leaves office after his term. He just happened to get 2 terms. I think Bush is counting down the days till he is out of office. Look at how he has aged in 6 years! To say that he refuses to lose power is a little too fanatical for me.

[chomerics]

Chom, the President leaves office after his term. He just happened to get 2 terms. I think Bush is counting down the days till he is out of office. Look at how he has aged in 6 years! To say that he refuses to lose power is a little too fanatical for me.

You missed the point pope.

[Ken]

Wow, how the story swings when the power shifts. Just two months ago the Rep were stating that there were only 2 possible ways to handle Iraq (don't flame me for the phrases, I use them to illustrate the point):

1) stay the course = win

2) cut and run= defeat

Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped:

1) cut and run = win

2) stay the course = defeat

Now, if this does not illustrate the problems with the two party, partisan hack system we have, nothing can. We, as a country, need to pull our heads out of our ***** and start running this country for the benefit of (are you ready for this?) the American people. Let's go back and examine the way this country was founded. And then we can right the ship and govern following the guidlines spelled out for us by the framers.
Very simple. I don't ask for much
:cheers:

Someone who gets it.