Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’

[shropshire 0]

Support efforts to... is not the same as doing it yourself.
It implies helping the people of Iraq do the job.. that's not what happened.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Cool....you did read what the president was allowed to do to accomplish that, didn't you?

Like this part:

Quote

SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

(B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

(b) HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE- The Congress urges the President to use existing authorities under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to individuals living in areas of Iraq controlled by organizations designated in accordance with section 5, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled to such areas from areas under the control of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(c) RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE- No assistance under this section shall be provided to any group within an organization designated in accordance with section 5 which group is, at the time the assistance is to be provided, engaged in military cooperation with the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- The President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 at least 15 days in advance of each obligation of assistance under this section in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

(e) REIMBURSEMENT RELATING TO MILITARY ASSISTANCE-

(1) IN GENERAL- Defense articles, defense services, and military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2) shall be made available without reimbursement to the Department of Defense except to the extent that funds are appropriated pursuant to paragraph (2).

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the President for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 such sums as may be necessary to reimburse the applicable appropriation, fund, or account for the value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of defense articles, defense services, or military education and training provided under subsection (a)(2).

(f) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS- (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are authorized to remain available until expended.

(2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated under this section are in addition to amounts otherwise available for the purposes described in this section.

(g) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- Activities under this section (including activities of the nature described in subsection (b)) may be undertaken notwithstanding any other provision of law.

SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF IRAQI DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION ORGANIZATION.

(a) INITIAL DESIGNATION- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall designate one or more Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(b) DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATIONS- At any time subsequent to the initial designation pursuant to subsection (a), the President may designate one or more additional Iraqi democratic opposition organizations that the President determines satisfy the criteria set forth in subsection (c) as eligible to receive assistance under section 4.

(c) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- In designating an organization pursuant to this section, the President shall consider only organizations that--

(1) include a broad spectrum of Iraqi individuals, groups, or both, opposed to the Saddam Hussein regime; and

(2) are committed to democratic values, to respect for human rights, to peaceful relations with Iraq's neighbors, to maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, and to fostering cooperation among democratic opponents of the Saddam Hussein regime.

(d) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT- At least 15 days in advance of designating an Iraqi democratic opposition organization pursuant to this section, the President shall notify the congressional committees specified in section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 of his proposed designation in accordance with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under section 634A.

To simplify it: He was allowed to help assist defined democratic opposition parties in Iraq. Not allowed to go in and do it himself....

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Support efforts to... is not the same as doing it yourself.
It implies helping the people of Iraq do the job.. that's not what happened.

Really? It was my understanding that they held elections...doesn't sound like we "did it ourselves".

Training the Iraqui military and police forces to take over security doesn't sound like "doing it ourselves", either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

So the election came BEFORE the invasion then.. not as I remember events.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Really? It was my understanding that they held elections...doesn't sound like we "did it ourselves".

Training the Iraqui military and police forces to take over security doesn't sound like "doing it ourselves", either.

Were they designated as a democratic opposition party?

[mnealtx 0]

Again, from PL 105-235

Quote

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

This is in there, too... looks like Congress smartened up and didn't want Billy Boy shooting up any more Aspirin factories...

Be that as it may.. the Public law didn't constrain the President from using military force, that was granted by the Joint Resolution, below:

Quote

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Public Law 105-235 states:

Quote

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is
in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations,
and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in
accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States,
to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

That doesn't say, change the regime. Non of the "international obligations" involved regime change.

So, we are back to the actual authroization as I quoted above. The president was authorized to enforce UN resolutions (which was a bit of a joke since they don't enforce the resolutions against Israel) which leaves one main reason, to protect the Homeland.

Certainly no authorization to go into Iraq with the goal of regime change (which would also be illegal under international law).

(as a complete side note, I find it funny that Gravitymaster has gone completely silent on this)

Gee, occaisionally I have other things to do besides hanging out and chatting with you.

The best way to protect the security of the US was to remove SH from power. Before you start the usual "Bush Lied" crap, let me remind you that most politicians and intel agencies believed the same at the time. I'll leave it to others to repost what Hillary etc. said at that time.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Be that as it may.. the Public law didn't constrain the President from using military force, that was granted by the Joint Resolution, below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that the President was authorized to do that. With the two main (though I would argue there really is only one main goal, since the UN resolution was is a bit of a hoax) goals. In my eyes, the main goal was to defend the national security of the United States.

Regime change in Iraq was a strategy towards that main goal, and therefor wasn't the main goal itself.

That was my argument with Gravitymaster. he stated regime change was the main goal, I argued that it was a strategy towards the main goal of defending the Homeland.

I still hold that I am right and GM is wrong.

[mr2mk1g 10]

BEST
THREAD
EVER

Watching a couple of Bushites arguing that Bush isn't a liar - just an international war criminal!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

BEST
THREAD
EVER

Watching a couple of Bushites arguing that Bush isn't a liar - just an international war criminal!

Cite, please.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

It's called irony my dear fellow. You couldn't possibly be expected to understand.

Much of the discussion above has been about whether Bush lies right?

Some on this thread have tried to displace any suggestion that Bush may have lied recently about what his original intent was in invading Iraq (WMD vs Regime change) by posted that all along Bush was always saying that invading Iraq was all about regime change.

I found this argument amusing because it is somewhat ironic or counterintuitive if you will.

Now while it would indeed be true that if Bush did order the invasion of Iraq to effect regime change, that would mean he was not lying to people now because this was always his goal.

I found the argument amusing however because this would also mean he was guilty of war crimes – an argument one would hardly expect to hear from an ardent Bush supporter.

See, invading a country to effect regime change has no justification under international law and can be defined as a crime against peace or 'war crime'.

If Bush did as some Bushites here claim, well, I think I've said this before - he's in for a very very unhappy retirement marked by many many court appearances.

See how that argument is amusing? A Bushite arguing for their idol to be charged with international war crimes? I thought so.

[martin-o 0]

We should at least be able to agree that George didn’t do such a good job communicating the reasons and goals. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having all these debates on what was actually said. I think we should also be able to find some common ground regarding the success of the Iraq war; it’s just not going very well.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

We should at least be able to agree that George didn’t do such a good job communicating the reasons and goals. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having all these debates on what was actually said. I think we should also be able to find some common ground regarding the success of the Iraq war; it’s just not going very well.

Yes, I can definitely see that there would be a problem figuring out what is meant by:
"And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. "

or
"Iraq could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given"

VERY ambiguous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[slug 1]

Quote

Do you honestly believe that the Federal Government wishes to allow the Iraqis to govern their own country? The true goal is to get a stronghold in the M.E. and a firm grasp on oil. This has little to do with democracy. If the Iraqis decide that they would rather elect a government that sways towards a union with Iran (or anyother country that the U.S. has deemed to be evil) the U.S. would balk! Much as they balked after the Palestinian election. The only government that will be allowed is one that will bend to the will of the Federal Government. So far this new government is partialy inline.

Your giving the feds to much credit for knowing what they want ot how to get it.

Without helpful guidence provided by lobbiests, special interest groups, industrial/academic experts, and other well intended groups the feds could be replaced by a head of lettuce.

GW was elected to be president based on some type of broad political agenda & election promises, but now that he's in office he has to rely on his "team" to help him make policy decisions, slogans, speech's, find his desk etc.

GW et al will be in office for another 2+ yr's and we can't do squat. To bad Suck it up with any luck we'll have "won the war in iraq and diverted our resources to other hot spots.

IMO the question should be What can we do to insure that the team advising whoever the next president is, that they respresent the interest of the voters, commen sense, etc and not special interest groups. Otherwise our elected officals will continue to make poor decisions based on poor info.

I don't think it's possiable to wean the feds from using the team appoach for decision makeing whatever political party is in power, the overall end result will be the same. FUBAR

Maybe we can disuss this in 10 yr's and disccuss how we got to where we're at, with the benifit of hindsight

R.I.P.

• Quote