billvon 3,131 #51 December 21, 2004 >Congress voted to use force. No, they supported the president to use force if he felt it was needed. He made the call, as is his job. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #52 December 21, 2004 QuoteCongress authorized the use of force, yes... Rumsfeld was/is responsible for execution, there is a difference. Wel I tend to blame all the parties of an action. Congress voted to use force, without that there would be no troops deployed. You need to hold people accountable for their actions."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #53 December 21, 2004 Quote>Congress voted to use force. No, they supported the president to use force if he felt it was needed. He made the call, as is his job. Bill explain how to me that Congress did not give that power to the President? They voted to use force. Pretty simple."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #54 December 21, 2004 QuoteAs a last resort. Which it wasn't. Your opinion Your buddies don't agree: Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #55 December 21, 2004 QuoteThey voted to use force. Pretty simple. ????? Congress voted to allow or suport the president if he decided the use of force was the best course of action. The decision was the president's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #56 December 21, 2004 QuoteCongress voted to allow or suport the president if he decided the use of force was the best course of action. The decision was the president's. They made the choice...If they didn't want it, they could have voted no."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #57 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteCongress voted to allow or suport the president if he decided the use of force was the best course of action. The decision was the president's. They made the choice...If they didn't want it, they could have voted no. They believed the president (as did all of America) when he said that an attack from weapons of mass destruction was imminent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #58 December 21, 2004 QuoteThey believed the president (as did all of America) when he said that an attack from weapons of mass destruction was imminent. They say intel and made a choice, the same choice the President made...You wanna blame the Prez, you have to blame them as well. Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #59 December 21, 2004 >They voted to use force. Pretty simple. No. You may prefer to re-interpret that vote that way, but the vote itself did not direct the use of force. They voted to support the president's decision. When a city gives a cop a gun, it is not a directive to shoot people. It gives him the option to use force. It would be asinine to blame the police commissioner for a cop who shoots another cop in a bar argument. It is the responsibility of the cop to use his gun appropriately, when it is needed and not before. It is the responsibility of the president to use force when it is needed and not before. I know it's popular to blame anyone but the person you support, but the buck has to stop somewhere - and the president cannot shirk this particular buck. It was his call and his responsibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #60 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey believed the president (as did all of America) when he said that an attack from weapons of mass destruction was imminent. They say intel and made a choice, the same choice the President made...You wanna blame the Prez, you have to blame them as well. Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. I'll agree that a certain amount of blame needs to be shared by the Congress for their vote. However, the final decision was made by the president and the president alone. He asked Congress for their approval and they believed in him. The thing that you really can't get around is that if you had the same decision to make - one that would certainly mean the killing of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of spending - you would want to be absolutely certain that what you were doing was not only necessary, but a last resort. Not pretty sure, not 80/20, but not one sliver of doubt. That didn't happen and there should be a price to pay for it. Unfortunately in this case, its the 18 yr old PFC with wide eyed American pride who are paying it on behalf of the administration and those who put that administration in place and continue to support it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #61 December 21, 2004 QuoteWhen a city gives a cop a gun, it is not a directive to shoot people. It gives him the option to use force. And when a cop uses his gun the WHOLE DEPARTMENT gets looked at."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 December 21, 2004 QuoteI'll agree that a certain amount of blame needs to be shared by the Congress for their vote. However, the final decision was made by the president and the president alone. He asked Congress for their approval and they believed in him. If it is proven that GWB knew that Saddam had no WMD...I would like him to face justice...And I have said that before. However, seeing that Congress used the same intel to come to the same conculsion...And that conclusion was the same conclusion that the UN had come up with mths before. It seems to me that there was credible intel. Unless you think the Prez, Congress and the UN all were in it together. QuoteThe thing that you really can't get around is that if you had the same decision to make - one that would certainly mean the killing of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars of spending - you would want to be absolutely certain that what you were doing was not only necessary, but a last resort. Not pretty sure, not 80/20, but not one sliver of doubt. Like I said several people thought it was good enough to for their part move the conflict forward. The time for Congress to stop and ask was during the vote, not after the war started. The UN also thought the intel was good enough. Now some wanted to wait, but the UN had waited for 12 years and had let deadline after deadline pass....It was clear they didn't want to do anything,and now with the oil for food blowing up you have to ask why? Lets not forget that Saddam had kicked the inspectors out once before...The UN should have slammed him then. But insted they did nothing. QuoteThat didn't happen and there should be a price to pay for it. All involved gave the go. Including Congress. They should have tried to stop it then when it would have been unpopular, rather than bitch about it now that it might be the popular thing to do."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #63 December 21, 2004 QuoteIt seems to me that there was credible intel. Unless you think the Prez, Congress and the UN all were in it together. There is a long way between credible and irrefutable. With credible intel comes an appropriate response. The UN did not support the US invasion of Iraq. It seems that you're willing to look in a lot of directions to avoid placing the ultimate blame where it is due. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #64 December 21, 2004 QuoteIt seems that you're willing to look in a lot of directions to avoid placing the ultimate blame where it is due. No, I blame in order: 1. Saddam for never complying 2. The UN for letting him get away with it for 12 years. Now if there is PROOF that GWB KNEW there were no WMD, then he will be #3 on that list...So far you want to punish him without proof. Bring the proof and I will join you in asking for justice....Until then I will treat your accusations just as that, and will not teat them as proof."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #65 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt seems that you're willing to look in a lot of directions to avoid placing the ultimate blame where it is due. No, I blame in order: 1. Saddam for never complying. Just because we thought he wasn't complying doesn't make it so. The Kay and Duelfer reports make it clear that he was complying in all important respects. I blame (in order ): Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Tennant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #66 December 21, 2004 QuoteNo, I blame in order: 1. Saddam for never complying So, you're saying there were WMDs? Quote2. The UN for letting him get away with it for 12 years. There were no WMDs. What exactly was the UN letting him get away with? QuoteNow if there is PROOF that GWB KNEW there were no WMD, then he will be #3 on that list...So far you want to punish him without proof. I don't believe he knew they weren't there, but wanting them to be there doesn't justify the loss of one life. QuoteBring the proof and I will join you in asking for justice....Until then I will treat your accusations just as that, and will not teat them as proof. What more proof do you need? That the WMDs -really- aren't there? Even in the face of irrefutable evidence, you remain unconvincable. With that, I'm done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #67 December 21, 2004 QuoteJust because we thought he wasn't complying doesn't make it so. The Kay and Duelfer reports make it clear that he was complying in all important respects. Duelfer found that he had created ANOTHER gas? QuoteDuelfer told me, "We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin of the biological-weapons program is in the security services, not in the military—meaning that it really came out of the assassinations program." The Iraqis, Duelfer said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with tear gas. They wouldn't say why. And they had loaded it into a scud. That does NOT sound like complying to me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #68 December 21, 2004 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I blame in order: 1. Saddam for never complying -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, you're saying there were WMDs? No I am saying he never complied...He was supposed to disclose what he did with them, and he never did. Simple facts: 1. If Saddam had complied (This includes the part of TELLING what he did with the WMD's we knew he had...I mean we gave/sold some to him so we know he had them) nothing would have happend. 2. If the UN had dropped the hammer in 95 when the UNSCOM found him making another type of gas, and putting it into Scuds, or when he kicked the inspectors out in 98...We would have delt with it then and it would have been aUN action. Insted the UN choose to do nothing...And they have done that as a rule. QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bring the proof and I will join you in asking for justice....Until then I will treat your accusations just as that, and will not teat them as proof. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What more proof do you need? That the WMDs -really- aren't there? Even in the face of irrefutable evidence, you remain unconvincable. With that, I'm done. The proof you have to bring is the proof that GWB willing lead us into war by lying. You have not been able to prove that, but you expect others to go after him even though you have no proof. The US works on a system of "Innocent till PROVEN guilty". You have not proven anything other than what YOU Want to believe. I have said before bring the PROOF and I will demand justice. Until you can PROVE GWB knew there were no WMD's then he is innocent. Many others "knew" there wer WMD's including the US congress and the UN. So you need to either assume they were all lying, or they all made the same conclusion based on the intel they had. And like I said it goes: 1.Saddam for never compliying (Before you say otherwise read the UN resolution) 2. The UN for not doing anything when he did not comply for 12 years including making new weapons and kciking out the inspectors. And if you can bring proof then I will ask for justice about GWB...But until you can bring proof you are just making noise."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #69 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuoteJust because we thought he wasn't complying doesn't make it so. The Kay and Duelfer reports make it clear that he was complying in all important respects. Duelfer found that he had created ANOTHER gas? QuoteDuelfer told me, "We kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use for aflatoxin. We learned that the origin of the biological-weapons program is in the security services, not in the military—meaning that it really came out of the assassinations program." The Iraqis, Duelfer said, admitted something else: they had loaded aflatoxin into two Scud-ready warheads, and also mixed aflatoxin with tear gas. They wouldn't say why. And they had loaded it into a scud. That does NOT sound like complying to me. Most Americans eat a dose of aflatoxin every day. The US military has lots of it too. Peanuts are not classified as WMDs yet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #70 December 21, 2004 QuoteMost Americans eat a dose of aflatoxin every day. The US military has lots of it too. Peanuts are not classified as WMDs yet. Nothing like invading a country because they have peanut butter. Must have been the extra chunky kind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #71 December 21, 2004 Sounds like some nasty pnut butter: QuoteUnited Nations inspectors were alarmed to learn about the aflatoxin program.Richard Spertzel, the chief biological-weapons inspector for UNSCOM, put it this way: "It is a devilish weapon. Iraq was quite clearly aware of the long-term carcinogenic effect of aflatoxin. Aflatoxin can only do one thing—destroy people's livers. And I suspect that children are more susceptible. From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruellest weapon—it means watching children die slowly of liver cancer." I mean if you beloved weapons inspectors thought it was bad."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #72 December 21, 2004 Replace aflatoxin with ciggarettes and the sentence means about as much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #73 December 21, 2004 QuoteReplace aflatoxin with ciggarettes and the sentence means about as much. Well if a guy was trying to force people to smoke so they will die I would agree..... But thats not the case."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #74 December 21, 2004 QuoteWell if a guy was trying to force people to smoke so they will die I would agree..... But thats not the case. easy, just make it addictive and target youths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #75 December 21, 2004 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well if a guy was trying to force people to smoke so they will die I would agree..... But thats not the case. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- easy, just make it addictive and target youths. Thats not FORCING. I think I wil get you a dictonary for Christmas"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
