There Were 13 Benghazis During Bush Administration!

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by JEFF9K, May 9, 2013.

  1. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL......seriously? What exactly do you think the joint resolution to use U.S. armed forces against Iraq means?
     
  2. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL....... seriously! Where is your quote?

    I think it means exactly what it states. That the Bush administration had the authority to use military force, if diplomacy failed.
     
  3. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe because they don't want to report 30 to 40 year old unproven allegations as fact.
     
  4. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lets not deal with what you think something means lets actually look at the actual black and white document:
    What part of the following quote or the FACT that dems voted yes to this is hard for you to admit is factual? This is the authorization for Bush to use military force against Iraq. Dems voted for this alongside repubs. It is a stone cold FACT! Please say it isnt so and discredit yourself in open forum.
    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
    Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
    appropriate in order to--
    (1) defend the national security of the United States
    against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.
     
  5. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You left out the clause that says Bush has to certify the diplomatic efforts failed. But no matter.

    Nowhere in there does it say voting to go to war to invade and occupy Iraq.

    It says exactly what I said it says. Thanks for proving my point.
     
  6. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL! STRAWMAN ALERT!!!!!!!!!! I never said "occupy" Iraq now did I? For the record, I criticized Bush for the occupation the second it was determined there was no longer a WMD threat. At that point the war was legally over. Due to the power vacuum the inital invasion created they remained because it was thought the removal of forces would create a much worse situation than if we remained. I disagreed with that completely. I posted the stone cold excerpt you asked for. Fact - Dems voted yes. Fact - Diplomatic efforts failed when Saddam refused access for inspectors. Fact - Bush legally could use force against Iraq and it factually happened with Democratic support according to the resolution they voted YES for. PERIOD! There is no debate.
    After no WMDs, the war was over and that is the only thing you can criticize Bush for NOT the initial action. That action was factually supported by democrats. If you want to bash bush for the occupation thats fine, but you cant ever say DEMs did not vote for the resolution because they factually did.
     
    The12thMan and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I said occupy. I never claimed that Bush used force illegally. I never denied the Dems voted for the resolution. I stated, accurately, the Dems never voted for the war. The decision to start the war, and invade and occupy, was all the Bush administration's.

    Did you have a point?
     
  8. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah you dont comprehend the fact that they voted yes for the resolution. This gave Bush the legal right to wage war. If they didnt want war then they should have voted no, and if they didnt understand what the resolution was then they shouldnt be in congress.
    I dont have a point I already proved it with factual documents and historical fact. Your refusal to acknowlege those facts wont ever change them from being true.
    You can say dems didnt vote for the occupation, but you can never say they didnt vote for war because they did. I even posted the resolution they voted for giving Bush permission. Would you like the exact date and time of the vote and Im pretty sure I can even find video footage of the actual vote happening. Im guessing you will still be in denial.
    If youre so right and Im wrong then Bush would be in jail right now. But since he isnt its because the war was legal on every level.
     
  9. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course I comprehend that about half the Dems voted yes on the resolution and that it gave the Bush administration authority to use force.

    Why would you think I don't comprehend that? I've been saying that all along.

    As your posts prove, the Dems did not vote to go to war, but to give the Bush administration authority to use military force, if diplomacy failed. I've been saying that all along.

    I've never said that Bush didn't have Congressional authority to use military force or go to war. That is a strawman.

    The decision to go to war, and to use military force to invade and occupy Iraq, was all Bush's. I've been saying that all along too.
     
  10. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes thats voting for WAR! Ask any adult near you that isnt holding an occupy sign or driving a prius.
     
  11. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So in other words....You don't care what Obama has done, no matter how criminal, no matter who died, no matter how much he was covering his ass to win an election, no matter how many times he lied to the American public to win an election, no matter that virtually every arm of his administration in corrupt, no mater that he went to bed while American's were being slaughtered and went campaigning in Vegas the next morning....basically NO MATTER WHAT THIS INSANE LUNATIC HAS DONE. You only care about what happened during the Bush administration 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 YEARS AGO!

    OK WE GOT IT. Thanks for the thread Irie.
     
    The12thMan and (deleted member) like this.
  12. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How in the (*)(*)(*)(*) did you possibly come to that conclusion about my post, which had absolutely nothing to do with Obama?

    - - - Updated - - -

    No, it absolutely is not. Your own posts proved they did not vote to go to war, they voted to give the Bush administration authority to use force, *if* diplomatic measures failed.

    Look, I appreciate that you'd want to blame the Dems as much as possible for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up disaster of the war. I'd want to do that too if I were a conservative and/or Republican.

    And I agree the Dems have some blame -- they are properly blamed, in hindsight, for entrusting the Bush administration with the authority to use military force.

    But you cannot deny, and you have not rebutted, that it was the Bush administration the made the decision to go to war against Iraq in March 2003, five months after that resolution was passed, and that it was the Bush administration that made the decision to invade and occupy, as opposed to some lesser use of military force.

    You cannot deny that is the truth. Blame Dems for giving Bush the power to make the decision, fair enough. But you cannot tag them with actually making the decision. Bush did.
     
  13. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Which is exactly my point Irie. Why are you talking about Bush? I swear it's a mental disorder that Libs just simply cannot help themselves but to bring up Bush when they refuse to discuss what their king has been up to lately....hint....it's criminal.
     
  14. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because we are having a discussion about whether the Dems voted to go to war in Iraq. I didn't bring it up, someone else did. So the (*)(*)(*)(*) what? Sheesh.
     
  15. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    uh uh strawman #2 never said I blame the dems as much as possible, I pointed out the crystal clear fact that dems were right there with the repubs. They voted the resolution into LAW. PERIOD! So they are equally at fault as Bush since they gave him the green light. Had the dems voted NO, there would have been no war. They had every oppurtunity to say NO they did not. All I am saying is dont forget to include your dem heroes in there with Bush when you cite the Iraq war. Which you lefties always do. I can even calculate an exact % of how much the dems are to blame if you like.
     
  16. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is blaming them as much as possible, pretending they are just as much at fault as Bush and the Republicans.

    Of course.

    Absolutely wrong. Bush made the decision to go to war, invade and occupy. Not the Dems.

    You cannot deny that fact.

    No, because the Republicans had a majority. But lots of things could have happened and there would have been no war. That doesn't change who it was that made the actual decision to go to war, invade and occupy. That was Bush and the neocons.

    I have acknowledged the Dems are at fault for trusting Bush. In hindsight that is clear.

    But the Dems did not vote to go to war, and the decision to do so was made by Bush and the neocons in his administration. That is simply fact.
     
  17. JEFF9K

    JEFF9K New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2012
    Messages:
    2,658
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a strong pattern. Only a dummy would ignore it.

    Especially for the chairmanship of that committee.

    No good American would let it slide.
     
  18. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The decision to use force, and what force to use, was given to Bush by Congress as an order, and the decision to be the recipient of the orders was made by Iraq; Diplomacy was dependent upon what the UN and Iraq would do, any failure by them invoked order (2) below that Bush enforce the law, and the UN Charter principles state that it be done according to respect for self-determination of people which required the removal of Saddam's regime and Iraqis voting.

    Bush and those that supported Operation Iraqi Freedom could not be traitors because Bush was given the authority to make the determination that diplomacy was “not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq…”

    Recalled by 1441:

    “H32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;
    I
    33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);” http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

    This was in fact a material breach of 1441, and anyone at the Security Council or Iraq saying it was not is irrefutable proof that diplomacy failed:

    “March 5, 2003: Bus bombing in Haifa. U.S. citizens killed: Abigail Leitel, 14, who was born in Lebanon, New Hampshire.” http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html

    “The suicide bomber was 20 years old, a student of the Hebron Polytechnic University (from which a large number of suicide bombers have emerged) and a member of the Hamas terrorist organization.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/861590/posts

    March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber. In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

    There is nothing surprising by this coming so close after that:

    March 17, 2003: “The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.”
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

    The President had to do what Congress ordered; this is a direct order:

    “(1) defend the national security of the United States
    against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    To continue containment would NOT have complied with direct order (1), as 9/11/2001, One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq! was a direct result of the Obamanation policy of containment, and to allow Saddam to continue to support terrorism would not have complied with direct order (2). Every single Democrat who voted for Obama because Bush carried out his orders from Congress is a traitor not only to this nation but to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
     
  19. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Complete nonsense. There was no "order" given by Congress to Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. Nor could they.

    And in any event, there was not vote to go to war.
     
  20. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes they can, and they did:

    “(1) defend the national security of the United States
    against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.”

    “1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace…
    2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…” http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

    It would have violated the United Nations Charter and the law of the land for Bush to do what the traitor Obama wanted as this is a direct violation of the United Nations charter and the orders given to Bush by Congress:

    "But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.” (Obamanation)
     
  21. Hairball

    Hairball Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,699
    Likes Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't recall. But I'd bet you a dollar to a dime that he never blamed it on some silly youtube video.
     
  22. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    7,629
    Likes Received:
    841
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That is a given because the only reason antimatter exists is to reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of antimatter. What we need are Star Trek antimatter grabs for the hypocrisy inherent in Nomad going nuts over the "Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated," of denigrating the YouTube video.
     
  23. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A strong pattern of allegations against a politician. Remember all the allegations against Palin that proved to be nothing? It is a tactic called the Christmas Tree effect, you hang as many on your opponent like decorations and eventually the weight will pull the tree over. None of them have to be true.

    If we go by your ideology then we have a Choom Gang member in the WH.
     
  24. Iriemon

    Iriemon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    82,348
    Likes Received:
    2,657
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There was no direct order. You simply took it out of context and made it up.

    Here is the Joint Resolution in context:

    (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
    Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
    appropriate in order to--
    (1) defend the national security of the United States
    against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
    resolutions regarding Iraq.

    This is beyond bizarre. Obama wasn't even in the federal government in 2001.

    Bush made the decision to invade and occupy Iraq base on fabricated and mistaken reasons. The cost to this country in terms of dead, wounded, cost, and create of ill will has been enormous and will bear on our nation for years. Everyone who participated in this deception is a traitor. [I can throw accusatory words around too]
     
  25. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Um no. Bush and the neocons as you call it dont get to decide to go to war. They have to have congressional approval first WHICH THEY GOT! There is no vote afterwards. THAT WAS THE VOTE! They voted yes which gave Bush the legal right to wage war as POTUS. Same as every single other POTUS.
     

Share This Page