Time for another NYT article on Iraq WMD (that didn't exist)

[Th'Pusher]

Yeah, so long story short Bush said "i want to use military force in iraq" and then congress issues a resolution saying "bush can use military force in iraq" full well knowing that it is exactly what he will do. they could have just as easily issued a resolution saying "bush shall not use military force in iraq" or they could have done nothing.

So Bush was the sole decider to use military force in Iraq. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'm concerned you're not going to be a very good lawyer, tbh.

[spurraider21]

February 2001.

You seriously didn't know this?

that was unrelated to the iraq war which this thread is about

[spurraider21]

So Bush was the sole decider to use military force in Iraq. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'm concerned you're not going to be a very good lawyer, tbh.

how did you get to the "sole decider" conclusion when congress issued a resolution allowing for military use? if he was the sole decider, he wouldn't have waited for congress, nor would they have bothered issuing a resolution

[ChumpDumper]

that was unrelated to the iraq war which this thread is about

I answered the questions you asked.

I didn't post your questions.

You seriously didn't know this?

[spurraider21]

I answered the questions you asked.

I didn't post your questions.

You seriously didn't know this?

i did. i merely assumed we were staying within the scope of this thread... the whole WMD thing followed by the 2003 invasion. why else would i bring up a 2002 congressional resolution

[Th'Pusher]

how did you get to the "sole decider" conclusion when congress issued a resolution allowing for military use? if he was the sole decider, he wouldn't have waited for congress, nor would they have bothered issuing a resolution

He asked for AUMF. He got it, with a provision explicitly stating military force could be used as Bush determines to be necessary and appropriate. Just concede the point and move on.

[ChumpDumper]

i did.

Sure you did.

i merely assumed we were staying within the scope of this thread... the whole WMD thing followed by the 2003 invasion. why else would i bring up a 2002 congressional resolution

Why would you write such a terribly worded question?

Anyway, history is replete with presidents' using force without Congressional approval. You're acting like it's completely necessary.

Since you like simplistic arguments -- it's not necessary at all.

The end.

[spurraider21]

He asked for AUMF. He got it, with a provision explicitly stating military force could be used as Bush determines to be necessary and appropriate. Just concede the point and move on.

Sure, I'll concede that congress made the decision to allow for military use in Iraq. And that they are putting the commander in chief in charge to run the operation.

[spurraider21]

Sure you did.

Why would you write such a terribly worded question?

no reason

Anyway, history is replete with presidents' using force without Congressional approval. You're acting like it's completely necessary.

never said it was. but in the instance of the iraq war, congress approved and thus were part of the decision making progress. they could have said no and put the onus on bush to act anyway, if they wanted to keep their hands clean. or they could have said nothing at all.

without congressional support, it isn't clear if we'd have the same full scale invasion as we did.

[ChumpDumper]

blue font.

no reason

I suspect there's a reason.

never said it was.

So what are you actually arguing here?

The decision to invade Iraq was solely Bush's to make.

He made it.

That's all I said. Nothing you posted refuted any of that.

[Th'Pusher]

Sure, I'll concede that congress made the decision to allow for military use in Iraq. And that they are putting the commander in chief in charge to run the operation.

And as CIC, with the authorization to use military force, Bush could have elected not to use military force, correct?

[spurraider21]

And as CIC, with the authorization to use military force, Bush could have elected not to use military force, correct?

sure. but then that's like saying every use of military force ever in US history was the sole decision of the president. there is more than one checkpoint

[ChumpDumper]

sure.

Well we all agree.

[spurraider21]

Well we all agree.

of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to push for military force in iraq, and congress made a horrible decision to get behind him and give the green light

[ChumpDumper]

of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to push for military force in iraq, and congress made a horrible decision to get behind him and give the green light

Yep, Bush asked for all the responsibility and Congress was more than happy to give it away.

[Th'Pusher]

of course. i think we all agree bush made a horrible decision to use military force in iraq.

FIFY.

That's it.

[spurraider21]

"that's it"

if you say so

[RandomGuy]

Go away loser. I'm not going to make a laundry list for you.

Because, giving things like facts and reasoning to back up claims is so, like, hard 'n' stuff.

I understand man. We shouldn't have to base our opinions and worldview on facts, especially when those facts might not make us feel better about ourselves. That would just be inconvenient.

There is so much more uniformity in just going along with things, because someone told you to. It's so much easier that way.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/wo...pons.html?_r=0

These munitions were remnants of an Iraqi special weapons program that was abandoned long before the 2003 invasion, and they turned up sporadically during the American occupation in buried caches, as part of improvised bombs or on black markets.

So, bad supply chain management on the part of a military that was barely competent, leads to old from badly managed or abandoned stockpiles turning up in the chaos afterwards.

Again, not the smoking gun you want it to be.

No one would dispute that the Iraqi military had some programs in the past, indeed they used them on the Iranians and Kurds.

The problem is that this turns up, and gives mental gnats like yourself some intellectual cover to justify the actions of the Republican/conservative president you like.

It doesn't say what you seem to think it does about our reasoning for going in.

We were still lied to, and if you can't admit that, you are being a of the highest order.

[Winehole23]

in rough, chronological order:



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3986

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28281

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33594

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35285

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44568

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61026

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172468

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185823

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209701

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240029

[Winehole23]

basically, a few loudmouths will still be shouting long after the rest of the world has moved on

they've been shouting for ten years that it's been proven they were right all along.

[Wild Cobra]

That isn't Cheney's speech.

Do you read anything?

LOL...

Time warp.

OK, Powell....

just goes to show I'm colorblind.

---

I'm definitely going to the liquor store now. I need to add an Irish Whiskey to my collection. Thinking of this:



http://www.bevmo.com/Shop/ProductDet...Strength/36790

Suggestions?

Hurry if anyone has one, because I plan to leave within the hour.

[Wild Cobra]

Because, giving things like facts and reasoning to back up claims is so, like, hard 'n' stuff.

I understand man. We shouldn't have to base our opinions and worldview on facts, especially when those facts might not make us feel better about ourselves. That would just be inconvenient.

There is so much more uniformity in just going along with things, because someone told you to. It's so much easier that way.

Does or does not, the speech agree with the claim that Powell said that Iraq was actively making weapons?

[boutons_deux]

Does or does not, the speech agree with the claim that Powell said that Iraq was actively making weapons?

Powell? He was lied to in the "data" he was provided for his UN speech.

He and he staff knew it, but he, being a "good (German) soldier", went ahead and LIED to the world anyway.

Mobile Weapons Labs!

[DarrinS]

So, bad supply chain management on the part of a military that was barely competent, leads to old from badly managed or abandoned stockpiles turning up in the chaos afterwards.

Again, not the smoking gun you want it to be.

No one would dispute that the Iraqi military had some programs in the past, indeed they used them on the Iranians and Kurds.

The problem is that this turns up, and gives mental gnats like yourself some intellectual cover to justify the actions of the Republican/conservative president you like.

It doesn't say what you seem to think it does about our reasoning for going in.

We were still lied to, and if you can't admit that, you are being a of the highest order.

Iraq invasion and occupation were completely unjustified clusterf*cks, but I don't have a cartoonish version of history where only two people are responsible.