No. I'm saying the bill gave no power for direct intervention and he followed it to the letter. NEXT !!!!
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:45 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > So Clinton signs a bill giving him the right to regime change in Iraq and > your response is a Senate Intelligence Report from 8 years later. Are you > claiming that Clinton did not sign the bill he signed? > > Mark wrote: > > Here is something reliable and empiracal senate intelligence report, > 2006 http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775 written > by republicans while Bush was president. > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 3:17 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Here's another link, this time from the Democratic Underground >> >> Mark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 1:45 PM, dick thompson >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> It was built by the Germans. The US was not the big donor to Iraq during >>> that period. In fact we were ranked 11th in what we supplied to them with >>> our supplying less than 1% of their materiels, less than Belgium, France, >>> Germany, Italy, and on a level with Luxembourg. That figure came from >>> Jane's studies on war materiels and from the UN studies also. >>> >> >> No, tammuz 1 and 2 wsere built by the french and destroyed by aircrat fire >> >> >> This is a pool type reactor of 500 kW thermal power supplied by France. >> The reactor was mainly designed as neutronic mock-up for Tammuz 1 reactor. >> [Tammuz 1 was destroyed by air-raid in 1981 prior to operation]. As a >> result, the role of Tammuz 2 was changed and it was used for training, >> neutronic radiography and for research purposes. The reactor was totally >> destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War and has been de-fuelled. The expected wastes >> to be generated by the decommissioning activities are about 50 tons solid >> wastes and 35 m³ of liquid wastes. The same radionuclides as IRT-5000 are >> expected to be present in the wastes. >> >> regardless of who "built" it..... hese people... the SOLE EXPERTS say it >> did not exist in 2000 >> http://www-ns.iaea.org/projects/iraq/tuwaitha/tamuz-2.asp >> >>> >>> He used gas on his own people and then was "falsely" accused of having >>> gas for 25 years? What in the world does that even mean. It is less than >>> 20 years since he used the gas on the Kurds. You really need to do some >>> more checking on your stories. Way off!! >>> >> >> 20 years...25 years kinda splitting hairs. what did the ONSITE UN and US >> inspectors say. >> >>> >>> As to the story of his WMD's that info was passed on to the country by a >>> whole slew of Dems from Clinton on down (there was a list of quotations from >>> over 20 of them right up until 2002 that was passed around on the websites a >>> couple of years ago). I don't see you calling them on lying. They got >>> their info from the same sources that Bush did. And he also got some from >>> our allies as well. >>> >> >> stories are just that stories..... there was and is no proof. >> >>> >>> You also don't seem to have anything to say about Bubba asking for and >>> getting permission to force a change in government in Iraq in 1998. He, as >>> with most things, did nothing about it but he asked for and got the >>> permission from Congress. Why was that? What made him ask for permission >>> to force that event. There must have been some reason for it. I realize >>> that it rather goes against the Dem talking points but it did happen. After >>> all History did not start in 2001. >>> >> >> link please. >> >>> >>> >>> THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: >>> >>> I didn't think he ahd gas or wmd's or nukes (though I Knew he was >>> sitting on a research reactor and a mountain of yellow cake) The >>> difference in time from having used and being falsely accused of >>> having gas was 25 years..... >>> >>> as far as building that reactor in Iraq... the US supplied and built >>> it AND donated the yellow cake as well..... You are right the US is a >>> danger even to itself. The only deluded person/people seems to be you >>> and Gringolandia. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 18, 12:07 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. >>> >>> >>> We thought he had poison gas. Our soldiers were equipped to confront >>> it. >>> >>> Everybody thought he had WMDs, mostly because he not only HAD them but >>> because he used them against his enemies. >>> >>> Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state >>> >>> Actually, they were. Iraq had completed construction of a nuclear >>> reactor (That makes you a nuclear nation state) but Israel immediately >>> blew it up. (Thank you Israel). >>> >>> Some people would say that a leader who builds a nuclear reactor >>> despite worldwide protests and has and uses poison gas on neighboring >>> countries and his own people was a dangerous guy. Other people like >>> deluding themselves. >>> >>> On Jul 18, 1:42 pm, Frederick The Moderate >>> >>> >>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> If there had been WMD, we wouldn't have gone in the way we did. Large, >>> tight formations are easy targets and we know that. Not to mention >>> that we would have sent a least one division to sweep and search the >>> area where we "knew" the WMD's were for residual (or any other) >>> evidence they ever existed. We never did. Not one peek. I'm former >>> navy intel and i can assure you, even though Bush screwed our Humint >>> network fro some time to come, we still would have been able to find >>> evidence - if believed it was ever there. >>> But I get it. You really, really, really want to believe there were >>> WMD's there. Okay. >>> >>> >>> Oh and btw, Iraq is not now and never was a nuclear nation state but >>> again, if you really want to believe it is or was, okay dokey. >>> >>> >>> Talk about wanting to believe lies. >>> >>> >>> I've lost five friends in Iraq. All of them Psy-Ops and a couple Force >>> Recon. They've made it clear for years that Iraq will never appreciate >>> what we've done and no matter how long we're there, they'll regress >>> shortly after we leave. Two thousand years of culture. >>> Iraq has already made clear they view US as outsiders and went out of >>> the way to spit in Bush's face before he could get out of office. But >>> you believe what you want to believe. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 18, 7:23 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> We also had the certainty that there really were no WMD's >>> >>> >>> Not true. >>> >>> >>> Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting people they viewed as >>> invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of >>> >>> >>> exit strategy, created a no-win situation. >>> >>> >>> Once again you show little understanding... Both AQ and the >>> Americans are outsiders... As is the harsh form of Radical Islam... >>> As is the lowland Pakistani... The question here is not fighting the >>> outsider BUT WHICH OUTSIDER... The exit strategy? Stability and a >>> non Radical Islamic government in a nuclear nation-state... >>> >>> >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They had >>> easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology have done >>> squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at blowing up weddings >>> and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess >>> >>> >>> and a mistake and we should get out. >>> >>> >>> Tactics and technology make a huge difference... As the fact the our >>> WILLINGNESS and desire to be a long term occupying power is far less >>> than the Russians or the Pakistanis as makes a difference... The >>> Russian border aided in supplying their troops but harmed the "Soft >>> Warfare" in being seen a a long term occupying power... >>> >>> >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have >>> truthful cause to go after. >>> >>> >>> Once again you proclaim Urban Lies... >>> >>> >>> On Jul 18, 3:58 am, Frederick The Moderate >>> >>> >>> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I agree with you about Iraq. We had so many sanctions on Iraq before >>> invading, they couldn't import dental equipment (because it could >>> possibly be modified for weapons use - go figure). We also had the >>> certainty that there really were no WMD's. So it was nothing to storm >>> right in. Like you said, cakewalk getting there. It was afterward the >>> problems started. Urban warfare, their commitment to keep fighting >>> people they viewed as invaders, and the complete lack of any kind of >>> exit strategy, created a no-win situation. >>> I also agree with you on Afghanistan. The Russians border them. They >>> had easier access and more troops. No success. Tactics & technology >>> have done squat for us. Thus far, we've been successful only at >>> blowing up weddings and killing civilians. Lots of them. It's a mess >>> and a mistake and we should get out. >>> The only upside is at least we're actually going after people we have >>> truthful cause to go after. >>> >>> >>> On Jul 17, 11:40 pm, "d.b.baker" <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Iraq was [almost] a cake walk, compared to what we face in >>> Afghanistan. Even with enough troops (500,000 +/-), it'll take a >>> generation to pacify Afghanistan - a mountainous moonscape the size of >>> Texas covered with 70-million ants (nomads, warring tribes - barefoot, >>> illiterate villages). There's nothing there to "rebuild," it's all >>> from scratch. The people are suspicious of everything, even a simple, >>> local hydro-pump to generate electricity. >>> >>> >>> Then there's Pakistan, blood-brother to Afghanistan; we'll never >>> subdue one without subduing the other. And by that time we'll be >>> broke, no longer a viable nation - which makes the whole surge- >>> strategy a lethal mistake.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark M. Kahle, , >>> www.filacoffee.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, , >> www.filacoffee.com >> >> >> > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
