Which one will...

[Yonivore]

I thought we went there for the WMD?

You thought wrong. I suggest you re-read the AUMF in Iraq.

Here's a link.

That's what Powell said in the UN anyways.

Well, that's part of what Powell said at the UN and, while I'll concede it was the most sensational and compelling, it wasn't all that was said.

[xeromass]

(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.


Huh? No WMDs, no terrorist support, no threat.

[Yonivore]

(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.


Huh? No WMDs, no terrorist support, no threat.

You overlooked the 23 specific articles the Congress itemized to show Iraq was a threat. WMDs were mentioned in only a couple and, then, in the context of Iraq's stonewalling the international efforts to take account of their WMD program.

As for terrorist support; I think it's unarguable that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists. Baghdad was a safe haven for Abu Nidal and other international terrorists. He also paid the families of suicide bombers. And, let's not forget the two terrorist progeny that came from his loins, Uday and Qusay.

But, I know it's not these terrorists to which you refer. And, the AUMF in Iraq never alleges Iraq is supporting al Qaeda. But, ask yourself, when the United States started raining down death and destruction on the terrorists and Taliban in Afghanistan, to where did al Qaeda flee?

[xeromass]

to where did al Qaeda flee?

Pakistan?

[ChumpDumper]

So where do you think the WMDs are?

And none of these will bring down Obama. Sorry you got your hopes up.

[ChumpDumper]

Pakistan?

[ElNono]

You thought wrong. I suggest you re-read the AUMF in Iraq.

Here's a link.

I know that AUMF well. As a matter of fact, it's based on a dated UN resolution that never authorized the use of force.

That's not what we went out there and told the world though. We told them Iraq had WMD.

Well, that's part of what Powell said at the UN and, while I'll concede it was the most sensational and compelling, it wasn't all that was said.

Oh, I watched the presentation. The supposed satellite pictures of 'mus gas trucks' that never appeared. That's definitely why we went there for. The UN didn't find a breach of Iraq's obligations, thus the reason they did not authorize the use of force.

Maybe it's in the do ents that are still being translated...

[ElNono]

But, ask yourself, when the United States started raining down death and destruction on the terrorists and Taliban in Afghanistan, to where did al Qaeda flee?

duh, Pakistan

[Wild Cobra]

Prepare to be blasted. It simply can't be possible that Obama and friends did anything wrong.

It's only wrong when someone else commits illegal acts. Democrats are en led to.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.socialistappeal.org/usa/h...n_scandal.html


In the latest in the long line of corporate scandals involving the Bush Administration, Halliburton, the energy giant formerly run and still largely influenced abd controlled by Vice-President Cheney, has announced that it will repay the US government over $27.4 million after it was discovered that it had grossly overcharged for the meals it supplies to the US military in Iraq. This follows on the heels of the discovery of bribery on the part of Halliburton agents who overcharged the military $6.3 million for fuel delivered to bases in Iraq and Kuwait. These glaring cases of graft and bribery may seem outrageous, but they are only the tip of the capitalist iceberg – just business as usual for US imperialism. These kinds of practices are in no way unique to Halliburton, or even the Bush Administration. The interconnections between capital and the state run deep, not just in George W. Bush’s America but in all capitalist countries.

The overcharging discovery involves Kellog, Brown & Root, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton. In a controversial “no-bid” contract, KBR was awarded a total of $8 billion to provide laundry, food supply, and build bases for the US military in Iraq. This also includes $1.2 billion to restore production in the southern Iraqi oil fields. It just so happens that Vice-President and major Halliburton stock-holder Cheney was directly involved in the awarding of rebuilding contracts in Iraq! That is not to say that only Halliburton got a share – so did major Bush-backer Bechtel, the construction firm, and of course a Texas-based company by the name of Exxon-Mobil.

Have any unbiased sites that will agree with this socialists lies?

How many other people here do you think approve of the place this article is from?

Socialist Appeal

[Wild Cobra]

"Haliburton was smart enough not to go bankrupt"

... no-bid Halliburton was not competing with anyone, was not in a commodity market, certainly not up against heavily subsidized Chinese mfrs who also have a -30% undervalued currency.

The only no bid I am aware of was for repairing pipelines, which Halliburton designed, built, and had the spare parts and blueprints for. Even if the only other corporation (French) capable of doing the job was given bidding rights, they would not be ably to underbid Halliburton. they didn't have the blueprints or spare parts on hand.

As for supplying the military, these contracts were already in place.

Please do some fact checking.

[Wild Cobra]

I thought we went there for the WMD?

That's what Powell said in the UN anyways.

Aren't you tired of using that lame line, as if it was the only reason we went?

Grow up.

If you want to focus on just that aspect of it, read these, and the associated source material.

Full text of Colin Powell's speech

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

[ChumpDumper]

Aren't you tired of using that lame line, as if it was the only reason we went?

Grow up.

It was the only reason that mattered and you know it.

[Wild Cobra]

It was the only reason that mattered and you know it.

Bull .

It's the only one that matters to liberals, because if you accept the truth of the others, you have to admit president Bush had cause to start the war.

[boutons_deux]

"as if it was the only reason we went"

It was The Big Lie, the primary reason, the Powell-to-UN reason to get UN approval (Repugs don't hate the UN when it give them OK to invade other countries), and of course it was a pretext for the oil. All the other reasons were also Big Lies.

WC's sacred military was abused and trashed and wasted by the Repugs, and still he defends the Repugs.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Literally tens of thousands of al Qaedans, Taliban, and Ba'athist regime loyalists, along with a procession of their de able dictators and figureheads have been brought to justice. Jeeze!

So yoni supports an administration that lied to him..but now wants to complain about a federal loan program? Did Yoni show any outrage when 9 billion came up missing in Iraq?

So in the event the administration made a bad loan, so what? I'm not happy about it but with all of the nation building we are doing I find it hard for those who d the war to complain about govt spending in general.

Are they STLL translating the do ents ?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It was the only reason that mattered and you know it.

Chump your wrong. We went because they were an iminent threat with drones that could drop bombs on the US within 45 minutes. We also went to Iraq because of 9/11.


Gotta go, I need to get back to complain about a govt loan ...

[scott]

Is the Daily Show the only intellectually honest "news" show out there?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...xrs=share_copy

[hater]

Chump your wrong. We went because they were an iminent threat with drones that could drop bombs on the US within 45 minutes. We also went to Iraq because of 9/11.

what?

[Yonivore]

Pakistan?

In part. Zarqawi (remember him?) fled to Iraq and strengthened AQI -- that's al Qaeda in Iraq for the intentionally ignorant who claimed for the longest time they didn't exist.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq before President Bush invaded. Another reason to invade yet, it didn't make the list of 23 Congress laid out.

[Yonivore]

I know that AUMF well. As a matter of fact, it's based on a dated UN resolution that never authorized the use of force.

That's not what we went out there and told the world though. We told them Iraq had WMD.

Actually, most of the UNSC resolutions mentioned in the AUMF in Iraq authorized all means to enforce the provisions of the resolution. They were permissive. I'm not sure to which UNSC resolution you're referring though.

Oh, I watched the presentation. The supposed satellite pictures of 'mus gas trucks' that never appeared. That's definitely why we went there for. The UN didn't find a breach of Iraq's obligations, thus the reason they did not authorize the use of force.

That's your takeaway. Yes, WMD's were a large factor in making the case for the invasion but, only an incurious, disinterested person would think that was the only reason.

When the AUMF was passed, it was in the news for several days. I distinctly remember news accounts covering the human rights abuses, Oil for Food corruption, draining the wetlands, shooting on our forces in the no-fly zone, continued threats to Kuwait, running citizens through plastics shredders, providing safe haven to the world's most notorious terrorists, paying the families of suicide bombers, throwing the inspectors out in 1998, and pretty much non-stop bluster for over a decade from Hussein.

I also remember Salman Pak and now we know, Zarqawi fled there from Afghanistan.

Can't help if you don't pay attention.

Maybe it's in the do ents that are still being translated...

I wonder what happened to that program...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Actually, most of the UNSC resolutions mentioned in the AUMF in Iraq authorized all means to enforce the provisions of the resolution. They were permissive. I'm not sure to which UNSC resolution you're referring though.


That's your takeaway. Yes, WMD's were a large factor in making the case for the invasion but, only an incurious, disinterested person would think that was the only reason.

When the AUMF was passed, it was in the news for several days. I distinctly remember news accounts covering the human rights abuses, Oil for Food corruption, draining the wetlands, shooting on our forces in the no-fly zone, continued threats to Kuwait, running citizens through plastics shredders, providing safe haven to the world's most notorious terrorists, paying the families of suicide bombers, throwing the inspectors out in 1998, and pretty much non-stop bluster for over a decade from Hussein.

I also remember Salman Pak and now we know, Zarqawi fled there from Afghanistan.

Can't help if you don't pay attention.


I wonder what happened to that program...

.." WMD's were a large factor in making the case for the invasion but, only an incurious, disinterested person would think that was the only reason"

Really, the 'imminent threat' charges, or the 'mushroom cloud' scenerios had nothing to do with people questioning the rationale? Rummy told us we knew where the wmds were...yet Yoni want's to impeach Obama for crimes!

From photos of 'mobile bio labs' to Iraq having drones ' that could reach the shores of the US in 45 minutes' or what about the aliminum tubes used as further proof of an active wmds program ..to only find out later that the administration was told they couldn't have been used for waht they claimed..

I guess my incuriousity got the best of me.. your such a lying piece of crap..