• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Since you're incapable:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

TODAY IN HISTORY: John Kerry's Iraq Speech, October 9, 2002
:lamo
 
The knee jerk response for liberals that are caught red handed making comments that blurt too much of their true thoughts out there is to instantly go to the "out of context" excuse....It really is childish.

Well, if conservatives didn't have to twist people's words so dishonestly, liberals wouldn't have to point out the lack of context.
 
As much as you thinking it was....

Heya JM.....so what happened with what was taking place with Benghazi after these last details came out? Are these new reasons why the left and the detractors always change the subject to something else other than Benghazi?
 
Well, if conservatives didn't have to twist people's words so dishonestly, liberals wouldn't have to point out the lack of context.

As in your statements regarding Michelle Bachmann?
 
Since you're incapable:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

TODAY IN HISTORY: John Kerry's Iraq Speech, October 9, 2002

Yep, and then the machine up'd the ante, fomenting fear amongst Americans after they were cornered due to Blix having found NOTHING, no smoking gun at all, we heard, ".......do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city?" And then reports that his capability to deliver such was 6-9 months distance. THAT was complete hyperbole, meant to sway American opinion just like has been used on Americans so many times in the past. However, Saddam Hussein was NEVER capable of delivering a mushroom cloud over an American city. Maybe one day, someday, Americans will learn the lesson, that the White House is often eager to go to war, when such is far from necessary.
 
You can't back yours up.

Sure I can, and have many times with you, but your tactic is always to either ignore, not accept, or outright dismiss anything that doesn't agree 100% with your preconceived narrative. So, it is pointless to beat ones head against a wall with you Joe. You have clearly closed your mind to anything that doesn't go along with your lies.
 
Yep, and then the machine up'd the ante, fomenting fear amongst Americans after they were cornered due to Blix having found NOTHING, no smoking gun at all, we heard, ".......do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city?" And then reports that his capability to deliver such was 6-9 months distance. THAT was complete hyperbole, meant to sway American opinion just like has been used on Americans so many times in the past. However, Saddam Hussein was NEVER capable of delivering a mushroom cloud over an American city. Maybe one day, someday, Americans will learn the lesson, that the White House is often eager to go to war, when such is far from necessary.

Eager? No, I think that is over exaggeration on its face. Remember, Bush went to the UN countless times, and got at least 3 resolutions leading up to the conflict threatening Saddam. All of which were mocked by actions of misdirection, and misleading UN inspectors.

Also, remember that most of our wars were entered into by demo's, this one is unusual in the scheme of war history in America. But with that said, has anyone ever reported the signature of the chem weapons used in Syria? See, it's just my opinion, but I think that some of those were Iraqi, and this whole "peace" process there is to cover that up.
 
Meaningless. Absolutely meaning less. She didn't pull the trigger.

Riiiiiight....She didn't do anything except like most liberals hold a wet finger to the sky and talk what ever **** is politically expedient.
 
Sure I can, and have many times with you, but your tactic is always to either ignore, not accept, or outright dismiss anything that doesn't agree 100% with your preconceived narrative. So, it is pointless to beat ones head against a wall with you Joe. You have clearly closed your mind to anything that doesn't go along with your lies.

J, at one time or another I've always backed mine up. I just won't keep doing it for you because you forget a day after you see it. You should see someone about that. And I always explain exactly what is wrong with the poor poor sources you use. You just whine liberal bias and post something inaccurate (bias is meaningless).
 
Riiiiiight....She didn't do anything except like most liberals hold a wet finger to the sky and talk what ever **** is politically expedient.

I won't argue with you there. Both parties did that. You just see it only one way, which is what I take exception with.
 
J, at one time or another I've always backed mine up. I just won't keep doing it for you because you forget a day after you see it. You should see someone about that. And I always explain exactly what is wrong with the poor poor sources you use. You just whine liberal bias and post something inaccurate (bias is meaningless).


:lamo Classic.....Translation: "J, I gave you all my liberal sources that spin the narrative on this, and your sources that I don't like are just poopy heads so I'm right and you're wrong." Then you stick your tongue out and utter a childish "naaaaah!"

Yeah ok...:roll:
 
I won't argue with you there. Both parties did that. You just see it only one way, which is what I take exception with.

Stunning....You agree with me, and in the same post attack me for not seeing it "your way"..... Good grief....
 
Eager? No, I think that is over exaggeration on its face. Remember, Bush went to the UN countless times, and got at least 3 resolutions leading up to the conflict threatening Saddam. All of which were mocked by actions of misdirection, and misleading UN inspectors.

Also, remember that most of our wars were entered into by demo's, this one is unusual in the scheme of war history in America. But with that said, has anyone ever reported the signature of the chem weapons used in Syria? See, it's just my opinion, but I think that some of those were Iraqi, and this whole "peace" process there is to cover that up.

I'm not pointing a partisan finger dude. I'm pointing a finger at the White House, I don't care who's setting in there, all too often its a rush to war, with exaggeration, intrigue and deceit deployed to sway public opinion. Blind yourself to that fact if you will, you have plenty of company, and collectively you will ensure that Americans see plenty more of it!
 
I offered clear evidence. Can you?

There is a plethora of evidence that democrats are every bit as naive as are republicans .. and since we're on the top of Libya and Benghazi, are you sure you need more evidence of that?
 
:lamo Classic.....Translation: "J, I gave you all my liberal sources that spin the narrative on this, and your sources that I don't like are just poopy heads so I'm right and you're wrong." Then you stick your tongue out and utter a childish "naaaaah!"

Yeah ok...:roll:

yes, anything mainstream and accurate is "liberal." I understand that. It's now near as good as something off the wall and inaccurate. Understandable.
 
Stunning....You agree with me, and in the same post attack me for not seeing it "your way"..... Good grief....

Make distinctions. it's often called for. ;)
 
Yep, and then the machine up'd the ante, fomenting fear amongst Americans after they were cornered due to Blix having found NOTHING, no smoking gun at all, we heard, ".......do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over an American city?" And then reports that his capability to deliver such was 6-9 months distance. THAT was complete hyperbole, meant to sway American opinion just like has been used on Americans so many times in the past. However, Saddam Hussein was NEVER capable of delivering a mushroom cloud over an American city. Maybe one day, someday, Americans will learn the lesson, that the White House is often eager to go to war, when such is far from necessary.

Only "Americans"? In fact there were 28 coalition members who shared the same beliefs, plus many more who chose not to get involved.

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
 
Only "Americans"? In fact there were 28 coalition members who shared the same beliefs, plus many more who chose not to get involved.

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

And then subsequent to that, with Hans Blix on the ground receiving cooperation from Saddam Hussein that he didn't get while inspecting back during the Gulf War, France had this to say, NOTE THE LARGE APPLAUSE WHEN FINISHED.

France - On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.[citation needed]

And that led to the babies on capital hill changing the cafaterias French fries to freedom fries! Oh dear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War


But besides all that Grant, my concerns and criticisms lay with the US government as an American, I care about how MY TAX DOLLARS are being used and how our military is being used around world. And the French were right with their concern that Iraq would be left destabilized, just take a look today!!
 
Last edited:
Only "Americans"? In fact there were 28 coalition members who shared the same beliefs, plus many more who chose not to get involved.

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

This is the type of bull**** attitude that provokes me to anger about our government when it gets ready to go to war. Might makes right and **** you if you don't like it, get beside us, or get out of the way! That Saddam Hussein was not in anyway connected to 9/11 and that he was never a threat to the United States was irrelevant to the Bush doctrine born before he was president and supported by such neocons as Chrystal, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a handful of others.


The beginning of the end of the international security system had actually come slightly earlier, on September 12, 2002, when President George W. Bush, to the surprise of many, brought his case against Iraq to the General Assembly and challenged the UN to take action against Baghdad for failing to disarm. "We will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions," Bush said. But he warned that he would act alone if the UN failed to cooperate.

Washington's threat was reaffirmed a month later by Congress, when it gave Bush the authority to use force against Iraq without getting approval from the UN first. The American message seemed clear: as a senior administration official put it at the time, "we don't need the Security Council."


http://www.cfr.org/world/why-security-council-failed/p7568
 
Your dishonesty is not. :coffeepap

When you fail to understand it's not dishonesty on my part. You use that word too freely and in doing so more dishonest than anyone on the site.
 
And then subsequent to that, with Hans Blix on the ground receiving cooperation from Saddam Hussein that he didn't get while inspecting back during the Gulf War, France had this to say, NOTE THE LARGE APPLAUSE WHEN FINISHED.

France - On 20 January 2003, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution," although France believed that Iraq may have had an ongoing chemical and nuclear weapons program. Villepin went on to say that he believed the presence of UN weapons inspectors had frozen Iraq's weapons programs. France also suggested that it would veto any resolution allowing military intervention offered by the US or Britain. The most important French speech during the crisis was made by De Villepin at the Security Council on the 14 February 2003, after Hans Blix presented his detailed report (see below). De Villepin detailed the three major risks of a "premature recourse to the military option", especially the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He said that "the option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest, but let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and that, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies", the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powell were not established. He concluded by referring to the dramatic experience of "old Europe" during World War II. This "impassioned" speech "against war on Iraq, or immediate war on Iraq", won "an unprecedented applause", reported the BBC's Sir David Frost (BBC News). The complete text is available at the Embassy of France in the United States. Britain and the US sharply criticized France for this position in March 2003.[citation needed]

And that led to the babies on capital hill changing the cafaterias French fries to freedom fries! Oh dear.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But besides all that Grant, my concerns and criticisms lay with the US government as an American, I care about how MY TAX DOLLARS are being used and how our military is being used around world. And the French were right with their concern that Iraq would be left destabilized, just take a look today!!

You'll notice that the connection between terrorists and Iraq was casually mentioned but they again acknowledged the existence of WMD, if not its possible use. That was mentioned at the earlier date I posted. The claim that "one also has to build the peace' was when the troubles really began with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq, and the French still didn't want to get involved despite their stating earlier how important building the peace was.

Geez, that Freedom Fries idea was a joke! Are the French still upset about that???

France could have helped to 'stabilize" Iraq but didn't. Who cares what they think? France, as always, has bitched about the Americans from the sidelines despite the Americans buried by the hundreds of thousands over there. Does anyone out there really care what the French think?

I'm skeptical you are American, by the way.
 
Back
Top Bottom