Do you think the situation in Iraq was worth going to war over?"60% of Americans say "No

On Aug 28, 9:34*pm, "Evelyn" wrote:
"mg" wrote in message

...





On Aug 28, 1:31 pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.

I can't believe that fool, O' Donovan is still pushing Bush's old tired lies
about why we went to war in Iraq. * Hasn't all of that pretty much been
proven to be wrong by now?

I didn't see the original post, probably because I have him killfiled.

Over all these many, many years, the right-wing argument style has
remained the same. One of the techniques they use is to substitute
quantity for quality. With this technique, they use the shotgun
approach by loading up their posts with tons of cleverly worded
arguments, that are all usually false.

The other technique they often use is to claim that the Democrats are
just as bad as the Republicans. In this case, it was this claim I was
responding to when O'Donovan was pointing out that the Senate
Democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution, but failed to mention
that the majority of the House Democrats did not.


--
Best Regards,
Evelyn

In the stony fastness of the mountains there is a strange market, where one
may barter the vortex of life for boundless bliss. *- Milarepa- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 2:38 pm, Donna Evleth the self proclaimed 'historian'
pontificated her nonsense to usenet as follows::
. America is
not a dictatorship, and Bush let his emotions rule him. The original
premise was "WMD", then when there weren't any, it was time to go in for
family vengeance. Which he did, with a vengeance. It was simple. It
was
wrong.

Donna Evleth


President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
support for his
Iraq Liberation Act
HR.4655

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Oct 7, 98:

Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in
'03
Here's what Congress itself of Democrats said in October 2, 2002 in
passing a joint
resolution (HJ Res 144) justifying and authorizing war against Iraq
which included a majority of Democrats in the Senate:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq

"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;

Lies. Saddam Hussein never threatened to attack America.

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 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;

Those lies were disproven by the 911 commission report.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international
terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the
lives and safety of United States citizens;

Those lies were disproven by the 911 commission report.

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;

NO WMD's were discovered.

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; ...
"

Weapons supplied to them by America.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...oll_call_vote_...

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did

No it was the next step to the New World Order.

Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

And they got them...from America.

On Aug 28, 11:28*pm, mg wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:31*pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .







U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama's choice for SOS:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

On Aug 28, 11:28*pm, mg wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:31*pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .







U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House

You obviously can't comprehend political posturing.

The DemocRATS in congress wanted to maintain some semblance of
opposition in order to recreate the political football in Iraq as they
did with the capitulation in the Vietnamese War
capitulation

On Aug 29, 6:16*am, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:28*pm, mg wrote:





On Aug 28, 1:31*pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.- Hide quoted text -

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House

You obviously can't comprehend political posturing.

The DemocRATS in congress wanted to maintain some semblance of
opposition in order to recreate the political football in Iraq as they
did with the capitulation in the Vietnamese War
capitulation

Ahem, getting back to the subject, as I said if it had been up to the
Democrats, there would have been no war in Iraq.

On Aug 29, 6:11*am, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
On Aug 28, 11:28*pm, mg wrote:





On Aug 28, 1:31*pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama's choice for SOS:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

*- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Senators receive only the intelligence information that the president
gives them. Congress has no intelligence agency of its own.

Regardless of what any congressman or woman might have said in October
2002, though, the fact is that the U.N. had inspectors on the ground
and were reporting good progress and no WMDs early in 2003, before the
invasion, and were begging for more time to complete the inspections.
Those inspectors were forced out of Iraq by the Bush invasion.

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
...
On Aug 28, 11:28 pm, mg wrote:
On Aug 28, 1:31 pm, "O'Donovan, PJ, Himself"
wrote:
. . .







U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

If it had been up to the Democrats, there would have been no Iraq war.
The resolution was approved by Democrats in the Senate, but the
majority of Democrats voted against it in the House.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama's choice for SOS:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists,
including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Too scared to reply to my facts I see. I guess you only respond to people
trapped in the left right paradigm. Well um Obaaaaama Obaaaaama.

Due to the nature of your post, I will take the option to toppost...
Yes, these people claimed a lot of things..

My mother claimed there was an Easter bunny. She KNEW it
wasnt true, but it was not a malicious lie.

Our beloved president and vice president overlooked the truth
because it did not coincide with their desire to whip up on Hussein.
Their lies cost the lives of many thousands.



"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:b37140f3-26dc-47a7-b264-


President Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in order to get unanimous
support for his
Iraq Liberation Act
HR.4655

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Enrolled Bill (Sent to President))
Oct 7, 98:

Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

The Democrat Madeline Albright claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sandy Berger claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Boxer claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Levin claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Daschle claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Congresslady Pelosi claimed Iraq had WMDs in '98
The Democrat Madeline Albright again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '99
The Democrat Sen Levin again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat former Presidential candidate Gore claimed Iraq had
WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kennedy claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Byrd claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry again claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Rockefeller claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Hillary Clinton claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Feinstein claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Graham claimed Iraq had WMDs in '02
The Democrat Sen Kerry claimed Iraq had WMDs in '03
The Democrat former Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed
Iraq had WMDs and was surprised that no WMDs were found in Iraq in
'03
Here's what Congress itself of Democrats said in October 2, 2002 in
passing a joint
resolution (HJ Res 144) justifying and authorizing war against Iraq
which included a majority of Democrats in the Senate:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
Against Iraq

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

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; ...
"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...oll_call_vote_...

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the
direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United
States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

Did Iraq pose a serious threat to our national security? Yes. Did
Congress believe Iraq posed a serious threat? Yes. Did Iraq have or
seek to obtain weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Those are the facts

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:007c8801-9dd1-4234-a4f0-
\

It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
********
He did not have WMDs and his development on them had been
stopped, but he DID indeed plan to continue with this work when
possible. That is a fact.

hls wrote:

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" wrote in message
news:007c8801-9dd1-4234-a4f0-
\

It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to
wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
********
He did not have WMDs and his development on them had been
stopped, but he DID indeed plan to continue with this work when
possible. That is a fact.

As containment was working and would have worked even more
efficiently had the White House been at all interested in
a peaceful solution to Iraq Saddam would never have had
the wherewithal to develop his own WMDs.

http://tinyurl.com/ahb868

"Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials
dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been
"effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing
down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since
witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this
view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the
subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds
that Iraq would collapse into chaos."