God it must suck to be a Bushite. You got what You wanted now deal with it. As My Mother was always fond of saying Lawrence (Middle Name Middle Name Mohr) You made Your bed LIE in it.

Larry Mohr

You got what You wanted now deal with it.

Unfortunately Larry, Bushco has ensured that we all have to deal with it, even if we didn't support this fiasco in the first place. Like it or not, we have to figure out a way to clean up the mess that Rummy and Wolfie made before they left town, so to speak.

LCL Why should those that didn't support this Illegal Action pay for it?? If I screw up why should YOU pay for it?? When I was growing up that is the way it works.

Larry Mohr

Larry, I am not saying that I think that we should have been there in the first place, and am definitely not happy that this is costing us a trillion dollars that could have been spent, for example, to ensure that my kid has up to date textbooks. I am a realist, however, and know that the US is going to have to clean up the mess that we created: As much as I wish it could happen, its not like the government can impose an excise tax on the GOPiggies to pay for their screwups.

All we can do is try our best to get our troops safely out of harms way and help Iraq get back on its feet. We obviously differ with the Right on how to accomplish this, but I think deep down that is what most of them want as well.

Why should those that didn't support this Illegal Action pay for it

Posted by LarryMohr at 2007-11-17 08:16 PM

Larry, you are right that this entire war is a fiasco but, please explain what exactly is illegal and by whos definition?

Senator Casey is right,the U.S. can't end Iraq troubles for the simple fact that the USA has caused/instigated all of Iraq's recent troubles!

Before Dubya Bush's pre-emption "Oil" war,the people of Iraq lived in a mostly healthy,peaceable environment.People went about their daily businesses and children want to school and no endless concussion of bombs were falling upon them.
My my how things have changed.
Sure Saddam Hussein was a dictator but he only tortured and murdered dozens of innocent Iraqis every year whereas the Bush Regime and it US Military not only tortured but they've also murdered over 700.000 innocent Iraqis since Bush & Cheney started their genocidal ball rolling by lying about the reasons they wanted to invade Iraq (it wasn't about yellow cake uranium,it was about black gold oil!)
Still Bush & Cheney must be very happy that there are so many Senators like Mr.Casey who really believe that the USA confabulated a war on Iraq for all the right reasons!

Bush wanted to go into Iraq before 9/11.

Just ask his former Terrorism Czar, Richard Clarke.

The day after 911, Bush told Clarke to find a connection between 911 and Saddam.

When Clarke told Bush that there was no evidence of a link, Bush threw a hissy fit and stormed out of the room. The man wanted to go to war before we were attacked and 911 allowed Bush to line the pockets of his friends with lucrative no-bid contracts. The intel was cooked as George Tenet has said in numerous interviews.

We lost 3000 people on 911 and 4000 more going into iraq all while diverting our attention from the man who actually did plan 911.....but you can't kill him when you do business with his family.

Bush has said Congress should not be telling military leaders what to do.


Congress to Bush

No asshole. Its you we're telling what to do!

*****Casey: U.S. Can't End Iraq's Troubles *******

......hardly surprising since the U.S. can't end the U.S.'s troubles.......

.......fix America first........

Sickoflibs,

The Iraq War is Illegal

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) 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 regarding Iraq.
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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(

2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

See also: Iraq: The Words of Mass Deception

please explain what exactly is illegal and by whos definition?

Posted by sickoflibs

For starters, it was purgury when Wolfowitz testified in 2003 that the Iraq war would cost American taxpayers little to nothing.

thanks for the spam, JeffinDenmark. Strong case you make in regards to violation of UN resolutions.

During the same time Israel has violated 3 TIMES as many resolutions as Iraq. And Israel used WMDs in combat just like the USA used WMD in Fallujah. Dont hear the "liberal media" talking about that do you?

Do you know Osama is not even listed on the FBI's own website as being wanted for 9/11? Did you know his code name in the CIA is Tim Osman? Do you know none of the 18 "high jackers" names are on the original flight manifestos?

for more see

www.getyourheadoutofyourass.co m

"U.S. troops are fighting violence "they cannot possibly resolve.""

Bush put "victory" in the hands of Iraqis years ago. Our guys are just there to act as buffers - and targets - while we magically wait for Iraqis to put aside their differences and embrace the government we've shoved down their throats.

And of course even if there were such a thing as magic and we do achive "victory", it doesn't benefit the US in the slightest. Iraq was not a threat and we whether or not it is a democracy was never our concern.

I think the problem here is that Bush and a significant number of his supporters simply cannot or will not accept any course of action that suggests that the invasion was a mistake. I'm not sure if it's because it would be a personal failure, an indictment of their judgement, or a genuine concern for national security based on misperception. Either way, nothing is going to budge these guys, no matter what happens here or in Iraq. Bush has already clearly stated that we're in Iraq for years to come, and he will do anything necessary to make sure we stay, no matter what happens. I think the only way we're going to leave is if a unified Iraqi government demands that we leave and actually forces us out.

Of course, you could say if Iraq had a unified government, we'd have accomplished what we set out to do, but an Iraq unified in it's opposition to us really isn't much of an achievement.

Iraq's government policies for better or worse have never been under control of the US. Unless we were out for nation building where you have to destroy the culture by wiping out a significant portion of the ME population it just flat out isn't going to happen. The whole venture has been a tragic folly orchestrated by the paranoid for the paranoid.

Well Jeff, I would like to agree with you but ;

(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--

this little portion of all you posts makes this war leagl. you can try to interprit all this however you want but still does not change the fact that Congress fucked up and gave him the authorization to get us into this.

please explain what exactly is illegal and by whos definition?

Posted by sickoflibs

For starters, it was purgury when Wolfowitz testified in 2003 that the Iraq war would cost American taxpayers little to nothing.

Posted by The_Favorite at 2007-11-18 12:38 PM

See, thats the funny thing about purgury, it has to be proven. Did Wolfowitz know at the time that he was wrong? Maybe; but you still have to prove it.

During the same time Israel has violated 3 TIMES as many resolutions as Iraq. And Israel used WMDs in combat just like the USA used WMD in Fallujah. Dont hear the "liberal media" talking about that do you?

Do you know Osama is not even listed on the FBI's own website as being wanted for 9/11? Did you know his code name in the CIA is Tim Osman? Do you know none of the 18 "high jackers" names are on the original flight manifestos?

for more see

www.getyourheadoutofyourass.co m

Posted by The_Favorite at 2007-11-18 12:50 PM

You really need to pull you head out of your ass. Show me where the US used WMD's in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq. Just because the bomb makes a loud noise and shit gets destroyed, does NOT make it a WMD.

Legal or not, it was a spectacularly bad idea. It was in no way unpredicatable that it would turn out the way it has, it was a huge gamble, and they lost.

I think history will regard this as a disastrous failure regardless of the eventual outcome. The whole point of the strategy was to rush in, take out SH, set up Chalabi, and turn left or right to confront Syria and Iran. Quickly. Within the space of months. For very little cost. At the end, we would dominate the Middle East and pacify the entire region.

That strategy is ashes. Months have turned into years, Chalabi was a fraud, no stable government has emerged, we're draining our military and treasury just to keep up. Most importantly, our influence in the region - and the world - has FALLEN. This has been a devastating blow to the credibility of our policies worldwide. Future presidents - R or D - will have to work uphill just to get to GWB's starting point. Iraq could magically turn around overnight and the damage would still have been done.

We're spinning our wheels discussing this as though there is a route to a successful conclusion here. The only real argument is whether staying longer is the bad choice or the worse choice.

"Show me where the US used WMD in Fallujah...."

White phosphorus bombs are as much WMD as 90% of the crap George Bush used as an excuse to prosecute war against Iraq.

Not to nitpick, but White Phosphorus isn't a WMD, though it is prohibited from anti-personnel use by international convention. It's just really nasty, cruel stiff, and it's pretty indiscriminate. There's no reason for using it.

See, thats the funny thing about purgury, it has to be proven. Did Wolfowitz know at the time that he was wrong? Maybe; but you still have to prove it.

Posted by sickoflibs

So if I rob a bank and don't get caught then it's not illegal?

Casey: U.S. Can't End Iraq's Troubles

But they can start it!

Casey: U.S. Can't End Iraq's Troubles

The Democrats are invested in our defeat. Since it's not in the headlines anymore, the situation in Iraq must be getting better. And, since Casey is a member of the Democrat party, he is trying to keep the war in a negative light. He must remain pessimistic about the war and not allow the recent successes to become known to the general public. Otherwise, the Republicans will get credit for beginning to turn the situation around in Iraq.

bingo......new course all right.....right out the door with our tail between our legs and a smashing defeat.
what the?
how long will it take alqeda and taliban to step in....or iran?

but that really doesnt matter to the dems, now does it?

and how would we know? the way things are reported on the ground there, if you didnt know about the underhandiness of the left in reporting good news, you might think that we were at a place of a year or two ago........where it looked unwinnable but now it has a definite look of success in the process...

and that is what REALLY has the socialist scared, both in DC as well as here on the retort because that is THE LAST THING that they want to happen.

"Recent successes...."

In all seriousness, these are what? And, in equal seriousness, if they are so damned real and impressive, where's my prime-time and live news conference featuring George Bush to brag about them?

"The democrats are invested in our defeat...."

Interesting statement. I'd say the evidence of the last years is Bush is invested in pretend victories.

Which gets to why we'll never get a mother-of-all-debriefings concerning Iraq, ala Norman Shwarzkopf---Fantasies are kept whole as long as they remain private.

BL2 appears to have hit the bottle already this morning. When was the last time you were productive BL2??

I think we need to just get out. Maybe the surge has slowed the violence down, but I think it's reasonable to believe that the insurgency is just in hiding. The violence was really bad before because we didn't have enough troops to properly cover every city. By adding troops we have given ourselves more coverage. But that's just going to slow the violence down, not stop those who wish to be violent. As soon as we leave the violence will start all over again.

The only way we will stop this through our presence in Iraq is if we either keep a large, expensive troop presence in Iraq for 15 to 20 years, or if we commit genocide of the Sunni's. Both ways will end up destroying the United States. The former would destoy us economically and the latter might potentially start a world war.

I think we should just leave now. Accept our losses and bring our troops back home where they can protect us from inside our borders. We need to stop fearing terrorism because it can't destroy the United States unless we let it through our fear of it. The fewer people we bully around the less likely it will be that anyone will hold a grudge against us, so we need to just let this one go and stop fueling foreign hatred of the United States.

I'm not a democrat, but I think comments about the democrats being invested in our defeat aren't helpful. Most democrats, like most Republicans, want the best for our country. There are people from both sides who may be invested in our defeat, or in the economic effects of war, but they are a vast minority. We all want to come out of this a better country, but some of us have different ideas about how to "win" this debacle, and some of us believe we've already lost this war and there is nothing we can do about it.

Plum:
How dare you inject any reasonableness and sensibility into this debate.

BL2 appears to have hit the bottle already this morning. When was the last time you were productive BL2??

Posted by byrdman


each and every time I wake up in the morning and get on here and spread the truth....something that many socialist here just dont want to hear.

lets see.....now I do understand about the number when it comes to dead for the year...but if you believe that number....and I DO......then you also have to believe the number that explosions and deaths in the past several months are down to all time lows......so the reason for the yearly total..
how about the terrorist reaction to the surge earlier in the year......we were told that they were going to respond that way and they have.
province after province rejecting alqeda and taliban and coming to be our allies.

I am productive every time I turn on the computer and write and every time I step into a classroom and every time I go anywhere,.......I am productive because I am a winner.....I have always been a winner and will always be a winner......and noone else will keep me from being a winner or even trying to tell me otherwise, for sure on this site!!!!
(the previous message was brought to you by the anti liberal,whinny, crybaby, everyone is against me and keeping me down association...)


INCRED....I of course disagree.....I firmly believe that it is the dems aim to discount any success in iraq as to do otherwise would mean that they were wrong all along, and give them this.....they rarely blink, even in the face of the truth.

(thanks for the tip on the tapes....I was able to find a dozen for about 5 bucks....)

Sorry, Nihilist. I'll try to be a little more crazy and ridiculous in future posts.

BL2, I understand where you are coming from, but the Dems are saying similar things about the right. Republicans (Neo-Cons in particular), from there perspective, look like they are doing everything they can to suck the oil right out of Iraq. They've been running around trying to make oil deals left and right. I'm not saying that's what the purpose of the war was, but I will say that to an outside observer it could definitely look that way. It really doesn't help for us to be so suspicious of one group or another. You shouldn't be blaming the democratic party or the republican party. You should be blaming the individuals who you believe are responsible. They may all be on one side of the aisle in your opinion, but that doesn't mean that most democrats want us to lose in Iraq. This is why I think we need to get rid of party politics. It forces everybody to lay blame on a group, or to pick people because they belong to a group. Really both parties are pretty close to being the same in my opinion.

And no problem BL2. a dozen for $5? That's a damn good deal... I hope all of that work is going well.