Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on May 19, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics
BAGHDAD - Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose premiership has been dominated by his unpopular decision to join the Iraq war, arrived here on a farewell visit Saturday, and three mortar shells or rockets slammed into the compound where he met with Iraq's leaders.

BAGHDAD - The American military widened the search for three missing U.S. soldiers, detaining nine people in a raid Saturday about 25 miles northwest of where the Americans were captured last weekend.

The U.S. command said Saturday five more American soldiers were killed. One died Saturday from a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. Four died Friday - one in the western province of Anbar, one by small arms fire south of the capital and two by a roadside bomb and small arms fire in northwestern Baghdad, the military said.


TIME TO SEND THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and Draft Dogger Dick to Fight in Iraq

Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on May 24, 2007
BETTER LOOK AGAIN. EVERY NEWS REPORT says the violence is as bad as ever.


LMAO!  Yeah col, because the media is objective and shows both sides of the story.  You are hillarious.


ALL THAT DOES IS SHOW THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT!


Do you have anything better than insults col?  I mean seriously, are you not confident enough in your arguement that you have to result to insults because you are being shown wrong again?


on May 24, 2007


Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2007
BETTER LOOK AGAIN. EVERY NEWS REPORT says the violence is as bad as ever.


LMAO! Yeah col, because the media is objective and shows both sides of the story. You are hillarious.



ALL THAT DOES IS SHOW THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT!


Do you have anything better than insults col? I mean seriously, are you not confident enough in your argument that you have to result to insults because you are being shown wrong again?



YOU are in total denial Just like Bush. You deserve each other.
on May 24, 2007
ALL THAT DOES IS SHOW THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT!


Thanks for proving me right col. 


on May 24, 2007
IslandDog


YOU are in total denial Just like Bush. You deserve each other.
on May 24, 2007
YOU are in total denial Just like Bush. You deserve each other.


LOL.  Keep it up col, this is great. 
on May 24, 2007

first you say that we were attacked by saddam although he didn't hit anything


what about their attacking our fighters "

That was because our fighters were flying over Iraq. How did that create such a danger to the U.S. that we had to invade Iraq. If Bush had said to Congress we must invade Iraq because they are shooting at our fighters when we fly over Iraq the answer would have been NO!!! I do not recall a single plane being lost while enforcing the No Fly Zone!


and then you say


When you’re attacked you respond you don't wait until someone dies first

WE WERE NOT attacked by Saddam. He did not have the capability to attack anyone and the Pentagon was aware of that from the assessment they made of Saddam's military capability in 2002. That assessment was proven correct when we were able to defeat the Iraqi Military is a few weeks. WE WERE NOT IN DANGER FROM IRAQ!!!!!!! IT WAS ALL A LIE!!!!!!



so which is it did he or did he not attack us

and if you say he didn't then who attacked our fighters for 8 years
on May 25, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, May 24, 2007

first you say that we were attacked by saddam although he didn't hit anything



what about their attacking our fighters "


When a country fires on aircraft flying over their country it is not an attack it is defending their country If Cuba were to fly attack aircraft over Florida we would shoot at them we would not be attacking Cuba by shooting at their air craft.

You are NUTS! We did not invade Iraq because they shot at our aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq!
on May 25, 2007
Democrats said Iraq was a threat.  That's good enough because democrats never lie, right col?


on May 25, 2007
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2007
Democrats said Iraq was a threat. That's good enough because democrats never lie, right col?

Since Most people on this Blog Side including you are always saying the democrats are always wrong, then you statement above does not make sense.

It was NOT Clinton that went to war and enabled a Civil War to develop in Iraq. That was Bush!
on May 25, 2007
Operation Desert Fox
Somalia

The list can go on and on.....

However, as I said, democrats said Iraq was a threat and they had WMD's, so since democrats are never wrong and they never lie......well you know the rest.




on May 25, 2007
If Cuba were to fly attack aircraft


if we had an agreement with cuba letting them fly attack aircraft over florida
and we then attacked the aircraft yes it is an attack

We did not invade Iraq because they shot at our aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq!


i didn't say we did

you said that they hadn't attacked us and they have
on May 27, 2007
However, as I said, democrats said Iraq was a threat and they had WMD's, so since democrats are never wrong and they never lie......well you know the rest.


The democrats did not take this country into a war we are loosing that killed 3,500 Americans, injured 25,000 and will cost about a Trillion Dollars. That was GWB and the Republicans!
on May 27, 2007
The democrats did not take this country into a war


that is right and that is what has the democrats so upset

becouse they are the ones who start wars and it is the republicans that stop them

on May 28, 2007
The democrats did not take this country into a war we are loosing that killed 3,500 Americans, injured 25,000 and will cost about a Trillion Dollars. That was GWB and the Republicans!


You're a moron. Check the vote:


The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. This is under international law not a valid casus belli, and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a war of aggression.
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "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." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."




The Senate adopted the resolution on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.


Voted in favor
77 Senators voted in favor of the resolution, 48 of the votes cast were from Republican members, and 29 of the members were Democrats.

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
George Allen (R-VA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
John Breaux (D-LA)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Max Cleland (D-GA)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
John Edwards (D-NC)

John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Phil Gramm (R-TX)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jesse Helms (R-NC)
Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Tim Johnson(D-SD)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Zell Miller (D-GA)
Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Don Nickles (R-OK)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Robert Smith (R-NH)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
John Warner (R-VA)



Notice how the dems that are now calling to cut and run are for the most part the VERY SAME ones that voted yea in the first place? Quite a few dems voted FOR it!

And while I'm at it....you waht to tell me again who we were "mislead" into this war?
If you want the "whole" text of the resolution, go here:

WWW Link

Or this, part od Billary's speach from senate floor.


October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.


So this crap we're dealing with started under Clinton! Out of her own mouth she said this.
on May 28, 2007
It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

Iraq did not pose ANY danger to the United States and had NO military capability as assessed by the Pentagon in 2002. Saddam had no way to employ any WMD he may have had against the U.S., and was therefore no threat.


and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

We can not unilaterally establish the U.S. as the enforcement agent for UN resolutions. Congress can not act for the UN and that section of the resolution is meaningless.

I am aware that many democrats voted for the resolution predicated of the insistence of Bush that Saddam was a danger. Passage of the resolution, would NEVER have occurred had we known what we know today, did not say we had to invade Iraq. The actual act of invading was on the orders of Bush not the democrats in Congress who went along with Bush and the GOP. Bush is the ONLY reason we invaded Iraq. There was no groundswell from Congress or the American People to invade Iraq. that was BUSH!


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

The UN Weapons Inspectors were back in Iraq and had we allowed them to complete their inspection before we invaded Iraq we would have learned what we know now that Saddam did not have WMD as Bush and Cheney claimed!



Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" Although True, that did not present ANY danger to the U.S. If the Iraqi People did not want to be brutalized by Saddam, they should have removed him from power.


The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

We knew that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11! That section is more BS!


In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

That is fine but that does not mean the United States should invade Iraq.


9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9