PDA

View Full Version : So is Obama any better then Bush?



bobroberts
03-24-2011, 04:00 PM
I guess the left here are really surprised that their boy has left open Gitmo and has gotten us into 2 more wars.
Even a lot of his supporters are now seeing what they got by voting for someone who had no record or clue to what he was doing.
He hesitates on everything and this could get us killed if ever they strike us hard. it would probably take 2 weeks for him to get the facts straight before he countered and then he would need the UNs approval.
To bad he proved me right. I really wanted him to be a great POTUS but he is just a POS.

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 04:02 PM
Let the truth be told.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:02 PM
The problem is their egos will not let them admit that they were wrong about Obama.

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 05:06 PM
The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

It was actually the eventually announced W policy to close Gitmo also, although he never set any plan to do so in motion. O tried to gitter done, but he didn't have a plan to do so, and hasn't been able to develop one in the meantime.

Personally, I view all these foreign policy and military/intel policies that he's continued despite a lot of talk against most* of them as (at least temporarily) forced on him. (*The Afghan war escalation was a campaign PROMISE, not something he opposed in the campign.)

You cannot come into office with opening salvos against the pro-life side, the NRA, big tobacco, big energy, big pharma and big medicine/insurance, Israel, military contractors, etc., AND at the same time take on the military intelligence complex. The last president who was so bold as to do an equivalent step had his brains blown out in public.

At a minimum, he had to a) limit his enemies to that already all-too-powerful list, and b) get some credibility that he wasn't a peacenik feel-good naif. The way he's gone about b) is to leave most of the military/intel situation in place, while he pushes those other powerful foes of America's peoples' interest.

ugotda7
03-24-2011, 05:23 PM
Reality is a bitch.....easy to ignore when campaigning, not so much when you're in the driver's seat.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

It was actually the eventually announced W policy to close Gitmo also, although he never set any plan to do so in motion. O tried to gitter done, but he didn't have a plan to do so, and hasn't been able to develop one in the meantime.

Personally, I view all these foreign policy and military/intel policies that he's continued despite a lot of talk against most* of them as (at least temporarily) forced on him. (*The Afghan war escalation was a campaign PROMISE, not something he opposed in the campign.)

You cannot come into office with opening salvos against the pro-life side, the NRA, big tobacco, big energy, big pharma and big medicine/insurance, Israel, military contractors, etc., AND at the same time take on the military intelligence complex. The last president who was so bold as to do an equivalent step had his brains blown out in public.

At a minimum, he had to a) limit his enemies to that already all-too-powerful list, and b) get some credibility that he wasn't a peacenik feel-good naif. The way he's gone about b) is to leave most of the military/intel situation in place, while he pushes those other powerful foes of America's peoples' interest. </div></div>

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

</div></div>

One of the biggest knocks on GWB was the overboard spending during his administration. The left had fits about it, and many of us on the right agreed that spending was out of control.

So maybe you can explain how when Obama is on track to spend way more than GWB (put aside for a moment the discussion of who actually does the spending) the left fully supports him with such charming comments as "we have to spend our way out of the recession" and "too big to fail".

Yes, Obama has allowed his administration to continue many of Bush's policies, business as usual, even after campaigning on change.

So.....did you get what you thought you were getting?

Steve

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 05:31 PM
excellent post.

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 06:06 PM
So maybe you can explain how when Obama is on track to spend way more than GWB (put aside for a moment the discussion of who actually does the spending) the left fully supports him with such charming comments as "we have to spend our way out of the recession" and "too big to fail".

Actually, the left didn't complain about the spending, per se, in my view.

They did complain about the $1.6 to $2.5 trillion in ineffective tax cuts that reduced REVENUES to the point that the deficit grew and disproportionately favored those who were doing great, the top earning 1% to 0.1% of the population. Obama never promised to stop that practice-- rather, he promised to KEEP that tax cut in place after its expiration date for all but the top 2%. His compromise at the end of last year saw him break the promise of ending the tax cut for the top bracket, to great howling from the left. But really, considering that extending the tax cut the bottom 98% amounts to $3 trillion in less revenue over a 10 year scoring period, the EXTRA $0.8 trillion that would go to the top bracket from extending these cuts for them scored over 10 years is relatively minor. Making for a fairly incoherent position that adding $3 trillion to the total debt over baseline projections over 10 years is just fine, but boy, if it went up a little to $3.8 trillion, DISASTER!!!

Here Obama pandered to the bottom 98%, implying that extending THEIR tax cuts carried no major cost or problem, and that isn't true-- it's 3-1/2 times the cost of the rightfully opposed extension for the top bracket.

As for the actual extra spending from Obama's own policies, as opposed to keeping W's policies, there is no there there.

Put together the costs of the wars, the cost of these tax cuts, the cost of Medicare D, and you have itemized nearly 90% or more of the total additional debt projected over the Obama terms.

As for the stimulus(es), from the so-called 'crapulous' to the various bailouts, sometimes you have to do big things to handle big situations to avoid worse problems.

If you suffer a stall at altitude, the danger is that you would plunge to the ground. The cure is that you plunge toward the ground in a controlled way to build up air speed, so that you then gain enough air speed to regain lift. A trained pilot knows how to do this. If you asked the Tea Party caucus among the passengers, they'd freak out, say that policy was wacked, revolt, physically remove the pilot, and pull the yoke up to avoid hitting the ground. Which would then re-stall the plane and cause what they and the pilot were trying to avoid. Difference: the pilot knew what to do, and they did not.

There are many times in business where the answer to a cash flow problem is to borrow money for bridge loans pending refinancing and/or reorganization. Here's one non-hypothetical example. Say you are owed a $2 million dollar land developer loan that has gone bad, collateralized by a second mortgage commitment on a $2.5 million dollar house of the mortgagee. The house is also encumbered by an $800,000 first mortgage. To secure anything from the loan gone bad will require paying off the first mortgage at par value. Should you now spend and/or borrow $800k after already losing $2 million from that loan? Almost certainly, yes.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 06:46 PM
Nice analogy. Here's another. If you are riding a train that is speeding out of control, do you increase the speed, or do you start to apply the brakes?

As for the left no complaining about spending, I guess you weren't here when one un-named Maryland resident posted regular rants on the topic.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 07:24 PM
" Nice analogy. Here's another. If you are riding a train that is speeding out of control, do you increase the speed, or do you start to apply the brakes?"
I have a couple of year's experience driving the BART Trains in the Bay Area. Trains just don't speed up on their own, normally ...the speed is controlled by the operator and that control also has a safety device, called a dead man's switch should something happen to the operator. There are also magnetic and air brakes, a redundant braking system. True, this was a passenger train,a subway train,but the safety system is modeled after a regular train system. For instance....you would have to intentionally crash into a stalled train ahead of you. The signal system between lights are
green....all clear ahead
yellow...caution, a train is in the next safety light system ahead of you...slow down, prepare to stop
red....stop, but if you ignore this, a mechanical arm will come up and trip your air brakes. AND will do this for each car on the train that tries to run the light.
Well that's how the system worked initially, but I think they went fully automated, no driver, later on. There still was an operator on the central computerized control panel that governed all the trains. A system of lights on his board identified where a train was, and in the event of an emergence, he could activate one of those trip mechanisms.
Aren't you glad that you asked?

bobroberts
03-24-2011, 07:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

It was actually the eventually announced W policy to close Gitmo also, although he never set any plan to do so in motion. O tried to gitter done, but he didn't have a plan to do so, and hasn't been able to develop one in the meantime.

Personally, I view all these foreign policy and military/intel policies that he's continued despite a lot of talk against most* of them as (at least temporarily) forced on him. (*The Afghan war escalation was a campaign PROMISE, not something he opposed in the campign.)

You cannot come into office with opening salvos against the pro-life side, the NRA, big tobacco, big energy, big pharma and big medicine/insurance, Israel, military contractors, etc., AND at the same time take on the military intelligence complex. The last president who was so bold as to do an equivalent step had his brains blown out in public.

At a minimum, he had to a) limit his enemies to that already all-too-powerful list, and b) get some credibility that he wasn't a peacenik feel-good naif. The way he's gone about b) is to leave most of the military/intel situation in place, while he pushes those other powerful foes of America's peoples' interest. </div></div>


So in essence what your saying he is that he is exactly ythe same as Bush.

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 07:51 PM
Bush light, maybe....but anything was an improvement, a God-send!
And thank you Jesus, for sparing us from Tanya Harding, er, I mean Sarah

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 08:10 PM
Unfortunately, woofie, our economy does not have automatic braking systems or dead man's sticks. Somebody has to be at the controls. And right now, when it comes to spending, we've got someone who thinks he's Richard Petty!

Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 08:12 PM
So in essence what your saying he is that he is exactly ythe same as Bush.

Not exactly. There's this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> [he] c[a]me into office with opening salvos against the pro-life side, the NRA, big tobacco, big energy, big pharma and big medicine/insurance, Israel, military contractors</div></div>

None of these were W policies. He ditched the Bush doctrine that said we ought to engage in preventive wars well before attack or even imminent threat of attack, on spec, as it were. He has still, even with the December deal, refused to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently to the upper bracket (as W wanted to do and tried to do).

He's a very different guy with very different policies, but with a lingering overlap in some policies, and it is in the overlapping continued policies that he resembles W, which are the crux of all his policy errors.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 08:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He ditched the Bush doctrine that said we ought to engage in preventive wars well before attack or even imminent threat of attack, </div></div>

I guess that would explain why we spent the last week lobbing missiles into Lybia....they attacked us?????????????



Steve

Soflasnapper
03-24-2011, 08:36 PM
I don't like making this defense, as I've already mentioned I oppose military intervention in this thing.

However, what is obviously different is that there is an international consensus, including FRANCE (!?!?!), that humanitarian concerns require stopping Khaddafi's admittedly vicious attacks on his dissenting population, with further lawyering up cya cover by the UN. This was not a unilateral decision, and it is not made on the basis of some future possible attack from Libya (the core of the Bush doctrine), but their current actual policy of using heavy military weaponry against a mainly defenseless population.

In fact, as you may have noticed, O was noticeably reluctant to do much of anything, even in terms of harsh rhetorical condemnation, until the international consensus had become clear. Our participation follows the Clinton precedent in his Kosovo war, that humanitarian concerns can rise to the level of military intervention given an international consensus, and some multilateral body's imprimatur (the UN's or NATO's).


That said, and while it's clear this is far from anything the Bush doctrine said, I also oppose this new supposedly legitimate reason to allow military intervention, out of an opposition to war in general except as absolutely necessary as a last resort.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 08:49 PM
I'm sorry, but I see very little if any difference between what was happening with Saddam in Iraq (killing his own people) and Lybia today.

We are either going to be the global police, or we aren't. I agree that I would rather we not be doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. Somebody needs to occasionally pick up the bully and body slam him. (If you haven't seen the video on that one, let me know and I will get you the link)

Steve

Qtec
03-25-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

</div></div>

Too true. I would suggest that another beef the Left has with O is that he hasn't gone after the crimes committed by the Bush admin.
In that respect he has been a huge disappointment. Granted, its a long list and once you start there is no end to it but in at least one case he could have righted an abortion of justice.

The DoJ scandal and the political prosecution of Don Siegelman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/court-vacates-siegelman-c_b_629735.html) is a classic example of corruption at the highest level and he gave them a pass.

Obama's problem was that he actually thought that the Republican Party would put the country,s interest above their own political interests.

Fool.

Q

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bobroberts</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The left in general (not here particularly) find that where O has disappointed them is in nearly every respect where he has continued the policies of GWB. They didn't like them before W left office, and they still don't like them now.

It was actually the eventually announced W policy to close Gitmo also, although he never set any plan to do so in motion. O tried to gitter done, but he didn't have a plan to do so, and hasn't been able to develop one in the meantime.

Personally, I view all these foreign policy and military/intel policies that he's continued despite a lot of talk against most* of them as (at least temporarily) forced on him. (*The Afghan war escalation was a campaign PROMISE, not something he opposed in the campign.)

You cannot come into office with opening salvos against the pro-life side, the NRA, big tobacco, big energy, big pharma and big medicine/insurance, Israel, military contractors, etc., AND at the same time take on the military intelligence complex. The last president who was so bold as to do an equivalent step had his brains blown out in public.

At a minimum, he had to a) limit his enemies to that already all-too-powerful list, and b) get some credibility that he wasn't a peacenik feel-good naif. The way he's gone about b) is to leave most of the military/intel situation in place, while he pushes those other powerful foes of America's peoples' interest. </div></div>


So in essence what your saying he is that he is exactly ythe same as Bush. </div></div>

He is excusing that Obama is Bush but worse.

As I have said many times, if Bush had (D) following his name on the ballot ... the far left would be petitioning to put him on Mt Rushmore.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:40 AM
What else is astounding is that the cabal will wail and gnash their collectivist teeth about the "CRIMES" committed by Bush while cheering dear leader in taking what they just called a "CRIME" and increasing it.

LWW
03-25-2011, 04:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry, but I see very little if any difference between what was happening with Saddam in Iraq (killing his own people) and Lybia today.

Steve </div></div>

I do:

- With Iraq we had countless UN resolutions against Saddamite Hussinsein.

- We had a ceasefire that was very clear hostilities could and should resume immediately if Saddamite Hussinsein violated even one of the terms.

- The use of force against Saddamite Hussinsein was twice authorized by the US congress.

- The policy of regime change against Saddamite Hussinsein was made official during the Clinton era.

- Saddamite Hussinsein ordered the firing of weapons at US planes enforcing the no fly zone.

- Saddamite Hussinsein had attempted an assassination of a former POTUS.

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry, but I see very little if any difference between what was happening with Saddam in Iraq (killing his own people) and Lybia today.

We are either going to be the global police, or we aren't. I agree that I would rather we not be doing it, but sometimes it is necessary. Somebody needs to occasionally pick up the bully and body slam him. (If you haven't seen the video on that one, let me know and I will get you the link)

Steve </div></div>

That Saddam killed his own people (typically, in terms of volume killing, the Shi'i'a jihadi religious fanatics and the rebelling Kurds) was never much of an issue except as added later as another alleged reason after the main supposed reasons turned out to be false. The claim there was more that he'd used poison gas (supposedly WMD, but not really, of course) to kill the Kurds, but that was also a false claim (it was not the kind of chemical weaponry in his armamentarium, and instead something the Iranians had a history of using-- sarin gas, iirc.)

The war was originally sold per the Cheney 1% doctrine-- that since he had WMD, he could eventually turn it over to jihadis for their use of them on us, and even a low chance of this meant we had to act preventively with war to make sure it didn't happen.

The main legal difference is that although W prosecuted the war under color of Saddam's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, W never went back to the UN SC to get their vote for proceeding with the war, even though admitting through his UN ambassador Bolton that a second return to the UNSC would be required (until they decided to do it without using that final required step). It was thought, probably correctly, that either or both China and Russia would use their vetoes in the SC.

In this case, the action was fully approved by UN SC vote, which provides total cover of international law for this action.

pooltchr
03-25-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm sorry, but I do not buy into the idea of letting a group of individuals from all over the world dictating when and where we will deploy our troops.

Steve

bobroberts
03-25-2011, 06:21 PM
Face it he doesn't want to lead because he doesn't know how.
Candidacy is a whole other ball game the actually being president.
He is full of it and beholding to the people who own him. Why is NBC not paying taxes on 18 billion. You know why. Stop defending the indefensible.
So do we fight in every other middle east country for humanity reasons.
Another reason we will be speaking Chinese in a few decades unless we step up to the plate and take back our control of the world.
I rather we be feared then beaten.

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm sorry, but I do not buy into the idea of letting a group of individuals from all over the world dictating when and where we will deploy our troops.

Steve </div></div>

The issue isn't deployment but the use of force. (I take your remark to have meant that, but just to clarify.)

We do not need and certainly wouldn't seek anyone's permission to respond to an attack on us (or our allies) with military force. (This is called self-defense, even if collective defense within a treaty organization, and it is allowed under international law.) We can also pre-empt an attack if it is imminent under the same concept of self-defense.

What we cannot do under international law without UNSC sanction is use force outside those two or three cases listed above. If you don't like it, then you are against the Constitution, which makes duly ratified and signed treaties the highest law of the land, on all fours with the Constitution itself, by the letter of the Constitution. And these are the strictures we've agreed to by signing the General Charter of the UN as a binding treaty obligation.

Soflasnapper
03-25-2011, 06:57 PM
Face it he doesn't want to lead because he doesn't know how.


Charging ahead unilaterally, putting all the monetary and troop personnel burden on the US, would be not only foolish, but very costly. It's time we stop carrying the whole world, and our rich allies step up and do their part.

He is full of it and beholding to the people who own him. Why is NBC not paying taxes on 18 billion. You know why. Stop defending the indefensible.

Not necessarily disagreeing with that first sentence, but the second sentence is wholly wrong. GE is paying what the corporate tax law allows, which Obama hasn't changed, and which has been in place from the late '90s, when GE started ducking most of their tax payments. This has been the case for over 10 years, so it isn't the result of anything Obama has allegedly done. And let's face it, if he HAD suggested tightening up the rules, closing these loopholes, you and the GOP would have been screaming about TAX INCREASES, which according to Tea Party orthodoxy must never occur and must always be opposed.

So do we fight in every other middle east country for humanity reasons.

Every other ME country that the UN and the international community form a consensus to attack, probably yes. I pray there are no others. Did you support the Iraq war originally or not? (I didn't, and I don't support this war effort either.)

Another reason we will be speaking Chinese in a few decades unless we step up to the plate and take back our control of the world.

This is an insane remark, IMO. We cannot control the world (nor can China), even though we outspend the entire world on military to our financial ruin, and that conceit that we can is a deadly error that will hasten our economic collapse. As a matter of fact, getting us to flail around and attack everywhere was Osama bin Laden's stated plan to bankrupt this country (modeling after the Soviet Union's financial collapse partially due to THEIR 10-year Afghan war), and it is beyond foolhardy to fall into his trap.

I rather we be feared then beaten.

These are not the only two choices available.

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, what is obviously different is that there is an international consensus </div></div>

I can't believe you said that. I honestly can't.

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That Saddam killed his own people (typically, in terms of volume killing, the Shi'i'a jihadi religious fanatics and the rebelling Kurds) was never much of an issue except as added later as another alleged reason after the main supposed reasons turned out to be false.
</div></div>

Why don't you read the actual authorization to use force from congress instead of being spoon fed a pack of lies?

Is that too much to ask?

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The claim there was more that he'd used poison gas (supposedly WMD, but not really, of course) to kill the Kurds, but that was also a false claim (it was not the kind of chemical weaponry in his armamentarium, and instead something the Iranians had a history of using-- sarin gas, iirc.) </div></div>

Why don't you read the UN definition of WMD instead of being spoon fed a pack of lies?

Is that too much to ask?

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The war was originally sold per the Cheney 1% doctrine-- that since he had WMD, he could eventually turn it over to jihadis for their use of them on us, and even a low chance of this meant we had to act preventively with war to make sure it didn't happen.</div></div>

And even this is a gross twisting of reality.

The reason you refer to, properly defined, was that:

1 - Iraq was a failed state and outside of the major cities Saddam no longer had actual control.

2 - Iraq was full of jihadists waiting for Saddam to die and make their move on taking control.

3 - Saddam was an pld man.

4 - Neither of Saddam's sons seemed to be capable of keeping a Saddamless Iraq together.

5 - Iraq had WMD and WMD capability.

6 - Keeping Iraq as a state not controlled by jihadists was as important as keeping jihadists out of power in Pakistan.

LWW
03-26-2011, 03:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The main legal difference is that although W prosecuted the war under color of Saddam's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, W never went back to the UN SC to get their vote for proceeding with the war, even though admitting through his UN ambassador Bolton that a second return to the UNSC would be required (until they decided to do it without using that final required step). It was thought, probably correctly, that either or both China and Russia would use their vetoes in the SC.

In this case, the action was fully approved by UN SC vote, which provides total cover of international law for this action.
</div></div>

How about you read the UN cease fire from 1991, that allowed the use of military force to restart if and when Saddam violated any of it's terms, instead of being spoon fed a pack of lies?

Is that too much to ask?

The thing that kills me about leftists is that they haven't the slightest interest in actually reviewing the true history of events. As long as they can find a blog that feeds them the raw meat of heat ... especially if it blames B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! ... they will run with it.

Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The main legal difference is that although W prosecuted the war under color of Saddam's violation of UN Security Council resolutions, W never went back to the UN SC to get their vote for proceeding with the war, even though admitting through his UN ambassador Bolton that a second return to the UNSC would be required (until they decided to do it without using that final required step). It was thought, probably correctly, that either or both China and Russia would use their vetoes in the SC.

In this case, the action was fully approved by UN SC vote, which provides total cover of international law for this action.
</div></div>

How about you read the UN cease fire from 1991, that allowed the use of military force to restart if and when Saddam violated any of it's terms, instead of being spoon fed a pack of lies?

Is that too much to ask?

The thing that kills me about leftists is that they haven't the slightest interest in actually reviewing the true history of events. As long as they can find a blog that feeds them the raw meat of heat ... especially if it blames B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! ... they will run with it. </div></div>

I cited my source, and it wasn't a lefty blog, but President George W. Bush's Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

Why do you think you know more than Bolton about his specialty job? Everyone, including the W administration through its UN ambassador's statement, agreed that whether the terms of the cease fire had been violated, and what to do about it, and whether to authorize a military response, all were the roles of the UN SC to decide as a group, not the single decision of one of its members.

Soflasnapper
03-26-2011, 05:09 PM
The head of the UN said proceeding without the UNSC's determination and vote to use force made the war illegal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[1][2] The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court reported in February 2006 that he had received 240 communications in connection with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 which alleged that various war crimes had been committed. The political leaders of the US and UK have argued the war was legal, while many legal experts and other international leaders have argued that it was illegal. US and UK officials have argued that existing UN Security Council resolutions related to the first Persian Gulf War and the subsequent ceasefire (660, 678), and to later inspections of Iraqi weapons programs (1441), had already authorized the invasion.[3] Critics of the invasion have challenged both of these assertions, arguing that an additional Security Council resolution, which the US and UK failed to obtain, would have been necessary to specifically authorize the invasion.[1][4][5]</div></div>

Guess who agreed before they disagreed? The US and UK ambassadors to the UN, ON THE VERY DAY OF THE FIRST RESOLUTION. (I note and hereby correct my error of saying our UN ambassador at the time was J. Bolton; it was Negroponte.)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On the day of the vote the US ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, assured the Security Council that there were no "hidden triggers" with respect to the use of force, and that in the event of a "further breach" by Iraq, resolution 1441 would require that "the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12". However, he then added: "If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security."[21]

As the same meeting, UK Permanent Representative Sir Jeremy Greenstock KCMG used many of the same words. "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12."[22]</div></div>

An inquiry by the Netherlands agreed as well:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> According to an independent commission of inquiry set up by the government of the Netherlands, UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions." [24][25]</div></div>

SecState Colin Powell also agreed, and assured the Syrians as a condition of their vote that there was no automatic trigger to the use of force implied by passing UN SC R. 1441 (France and China also agreed):

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[29] not with individual nations.[1][4][30] On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any "automaticity" in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were force to be used.[31] Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue. To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."[32]</div></div>

So agreeing with my position we find the very UN representatives of the US and the UK, and the SecState, independent scholarly reviews, and various permanent members of the UN SC.

Spoon-fed a pack of lies? Wouldn't that be YOU, wholly believing a post facto RATIONALIZATION that CONTRADICTED THEIR OWN PRIOR SOLEMN ASSURANCES AT THE UN?

LWW
03-27-2011, 05:16 AM
Bush's greatest error was attempting to appease the unappeaseable.

Soflasnapper
03-27-2011, 02:22 PM
Your greatest error (on this thread; not discounting other greatest errors elsewhere) was to claim that UN SC R. 1441 was self-executing as to a) determining the breach and b) a mandatory resort to military force by the judgment of individual member countries of the UN SC, and that there was no credible argument to the contrary.

In fact, as I've cited, ALL agreed at the time, and it was a stated condition and promise to induce reluctant countries to vote for 1441 in the first place, that neither of those propositions were true.

LWW
03-27-2011, 03:33 PM
I never referenced #1441.

I referenced #687.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, adopted on April 3, 1991, after reaffirming resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678 (all 1990) and 686 (1991), the Council set the terms, in a comprehensive resolution, with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.

The resolution, divided into nine sections, firstly urged Iraq and Kuwait to respect the boundary between the two countries, calling on the Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar to assist both in demarcating the border. It requested the Secretary-General to submit, within three days, a plan for the deployment of the United Nations Iraq–Kuwait Observation Mission along the demilitarised zone which was established to be 10km into Iraq and 5km into Kuwait.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The Council reminded Iraq of its obligations under the Geneva Protocol and to unconditionally remove and destroy all chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150km.</span> As part of this demand, the Council requested Iraq submit, within 15 days, a report declaring all locations of all the aforementioned and agree to urgent, on-site inspection. It then established the United Nations Special Commission relating to inspections and set provisions for it, and asked Iraq to abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons and submitting a report to the Secretary-General and International Atomic Energy Agency within 15 days.

Resolution 687 then referred to repatriations and compensation, stating Iraq is liable for any loss, damage and injury inflicted upon Kuwait, further demanding that Iraq hand over any remaining property seized from Kuwait. It also declared null and void any statements by Iraq regarding its refusal to repay its foreign debt, and decided to create a fund for these compensation claims (the United Nations Compensation Commission, officially established in Resolution 692).

Regarding sanctions, the Council reiterated international sanctions against Iraq do not apply to foodstuffs or medical aid to the civilian populations of Iraq and Kuwait, as well as removing sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution 661 (1990) and decided to review these restrictions every 60 days. However, sales of weapons and other related material to Iraq will continue to be prohibited.

After discussing the facilitation of repatriations of prisoners of war and co-operation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Council required Iraq to inform the Council that it did not commit to or support terrorism and would not allow such acts to take place in its territory. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Upon Iraq's acceptance of all paragraphs of the resolution, a formal ceasefire between Iraq and Kuwait and Member States co-operating with Kuwait.</span>

The resolution was passed by 12 votes to one against (Cuba) with two abstentions from Ecuador and Yemen after a very extended meeting.[1] Iraq accepted the provisions of the resolution on April 6, 1991.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687)

OH MY! (http://i-cias.com/textarchive/modern/un687.htm)