JOINT RESOLUTION ON IRAQ - October 11, 2002

Cyrus · #1 07-01-2005, 10:37 AM

Text of Congressional Joint Resolution Authorizing the War in Iraq

Why the surprise ? The Democrats in Congress allowed themselves, and their party, to be bamboozled by the Republican bluster and the threat of being denounced as "un-patriotic", or worse. Short-term, egotistical considerations (i.e. getting re-elected in the next election) and closed-minded objectives prevailed in the Dems' camp.

I, for one, never claimed that the Iraq folly was started by the fault of the GOP alone!

As to the text of the Resolution itself, I trust we can all agree that if the stated (and much trumpeted) reason for invading Iraq had not been the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, but "Qaeda terrorists" instead, no Congress and no U.N. would even listen to the sales pitch!

As you may recall, perhaps, Secretary of State Powell argued in the Security Council almost exclusively the case for the existence of WMDs in Iraq. And not of bin Laden and his Network.

lehighguy · #2 07-01-2005, 11:41 AM

What Democrats signed 3 years ago:
"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"

What Democrats said yesterday:
There is no link between Al-Qaida and Iraq.
There is no link between Iraq and 9/11.
There were no terrorist in Iraq before the invasion.
It is wrong and criminal of Bush to suggest these things.

I find the "flip-flop" if you will rather funny.

superleeds · #3 07-01-2005, 11:51 AM

So they have changed their position as new evidence has come to light.

Or are you maintaining that there is a link between Al-Qaida and Iraq, that there is a link between Iraq and 9/11, that it is right and proper to continue to imply this things because they are true?

I'll give you the terrorist in Iraq thing before the invasion but I submit you are over simplfying.

lehighguy · #4 07-01-2005, 07:36 PM

I'm not trying to make any claims. I just find it funny that they agreed with Bush before the war, now they are saying he shouldn't have said the exact same things they said.

When they talk about it today, they don't use the present tense. They act as if they knew before the war that it would turn out this way. Clearly, this was not the case.

PITTM · #5 07-02-2005, 06:50 PM

okay, so both parties were wrong in signing that resolution, the democrats say so and theyre idiots? i dont get it. isnt that much much better than continuing to make up lies after these lies were discovered?

rj

lehighguy · #6 07-02-2005, 07:15 PM

The Democrats don't say so. They get on TV today and act like they never signed that document. They act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

These claims are clearly false. They were apparently so afraid that they might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

Triumph36 · #7 07-02-2005, 11:05 PM

And the Republicans claim this war is to liberate Iraqis.

You have failed to address why this is any different.

Cyrus · #8 07-03-2005, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Democrats don't say [this was wrong]. They get on TV today and act like they never signed that document.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you provide us with one example of a Democrat going on TV and claiming he or she never signed "that document", while he or she actually did?

Shouldn't be too hard to find such an example, since they all do it.

[ QUOTE ]
[The Dems] act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

[/ QUOTE ] The war's opponents, including some Democrats, have always maintained that the evidence for the existence of WMDs or aa link between Qaeda and Saddam were flimsy and unconvincing, at best. Being forced to make a choice, and irrespective of the political pressure extant at the time, a lot of the war's opponents signed on the "document".

(Having only Yes or No as choices, a person who faces two questions will answer Yes or No, even if the probabilities are vastly different each time. Here's where true courgae should have come in, from the war's opponents' side: They should have refused to sign on and then adopt a third platform of political/military policy regarding the war on terror.)

[ QUOTE ]
[The Democrats] were apparently so afraid that [the claims about WMDs and al Qaeda] might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, this is too far fetched, really, (if they knew the claims might've been true, they would've handled things differently) but say anything you want about those cowardly Dems, I'd agree with ya!

Arnfinn Madsen · #9 07-03-2005, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
They act like they KNEW there were no WMD. Like they KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.

These claims are clearly false. They were apparently so afraid that they might have been true that they were willing to sign this document to protect themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most republicans knew the claims probably were false too, and signed as well. The information about its lack of credibility was available before this joint resolution was signed and would be within reach of every congressman.

It was available here, 6,000 kilometres away, in non-intelligence circles for xxxxxxx's sake.

All informed people who signed it were either cynical or cowards.

Triumph36 · #10 07-01-2005, 01:23 PM

The link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was tenuous at best. Sure it's in the document, but if pressed I don't think the Democrats would have agreed with it.

As for the rest, Bush's flip-flop is just as amusing. Now it's not about WMDs, it's about spreading liberty. If that's our principle to go on, why are we not in Liberia, Rwanda, the Sudan, etc. cleaning up these regions and promoting democracy?