Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: Boxer 23

Journal by pudge

Senator Boxer totally lied today when she berated Secretary-designate Rice. She said:

SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

No. There were two justifications for the use of force that the Congress approved:

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.

And as we all should be aware by now, Iraq remained in non-compliance of UN Resolutions (especially Resolution 1441, which said Iraq must comply immediately and fully, and in the three months following its report to the UN, Iraq still was not in full compliance, and was in fact refusing requests for compliance, most obviously in its refusal to grant interviews with scientists outside Iraqi borders). This was, according to the Congress, justification for Bush to use force.

You can argue about the war in many ways, but to say that Congress only approved of war in the case of existence of WMD is false.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boxer More

Boxer

Comments Filter:
  • Stop trying to make sense out of the things the wacky Left are saying. It is clear they'll say just about anything to bash Bush. It is also clear that despite serious deficiencies in the Bush Administration they will hammer away happily on the stupidest, most inane things they can find - preferably from at least 30 years ago - ooh ooh and if they can use the word NAZI triple word score.

    I feel sad about the Democratic Party. I worry about the Republicans getting too much power and getting nutty. I wish
  • Well I realize that your correct here with the UN stuff. Although it seems multi-dimensional in terms of the WOMD's that were so prominent at the time.

    Lets agree that WOMD's were a primary motivating factor behind the decision to attack Iraq, and the UN sanctions were 2nd seat. Beyond the political stuff, we can also agree that invading Iraq to oust Saddam purely on the notion that he is a prick, and kills his own folks (kurds, etc) would be justifiable in the minds of most Americans. Beyond that, there ar
    • I am not saying there were not major problems. I am just saying Boxer was lying. Again. On national TV. And no one seemed to question or make note of it. So I did. :-)
    • we can also agree that invading Iraq to oust Saddam purely on the notion that he is a prick, and kills his own folks (kurds, etc) would be justifiable in the minds of most Americans

      Only if you're a democrat. Clinton had no U.N. resolutions and no international support for Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq or any other military venture, but since democrats are 'good guys', that's okay.

      Bush had 17 U.N. resolutions, a coalition of nations to work with him, congressional support (not excluding the 1998 Iraq Libe
      • I'm not a Democrat, fortunately, but I don't see how you can broadly generalize that as something a democrat would think. Maybe you care to expand on that thinking?

        In my reading of that quote, I'd say in paragraph one he mentions WOMD's, which I presume is based on flawed intelligence which has become evidenced.

        I like the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph because it establishes a notion of responsibility on 3 counts: eliminating WOMD's (per UN resolutions), us troop safety (in Kuwait, or patrolling the
        • Not how a democrat would think but how they would act.
          Democrats get a free pass on wars of liberation, while a conservative simply woudln't have the conscience to do such a thing.

          A few other points, it's not a 'he', Pelosi is, or was, a 'she'.

          Secondly, we did NOT act unilaterally. We had 17 U.N. resolutions and a coalition, however constituted, it was a coalition. Unilateral actions are things like we did in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia and, oh yeah, Iraq in 1998. Again, no problems from the Left if a democr
          • As i recall, although I haven't verified this, the UN security council had a vote in regards to invading Iraq, and was rejected. I also recall bush going to the UN to say that we will invade without them, and form a coalition of the willing. Am I missing something here?

            Anyways, the departure of the UN rules in regards to weapons inspectors, and the no-fly zone is the only remaining justification, as pudge pointed out. Aside from that most Americans probably are fine with invading Iraq just because Saddam i
            • As i recall, although I haven't verified this, the UN security council had a vote in regards to invading Iraq, and was rejected.

              No. They never had such a vote. They were working on a resolution, but they knew it would fail and would hurt Blair (by going against the UN), so they dropped it.

              This is a little bit interesting, as many people forget what happened. When 1441 was passed in Nov 2002, the US said they would not require UN approval for force, but that they would come back to the UN before using
  • This dude here ain't re-electing Barbara "The Barbarian" Boxer.

    Heck, I even didn't vote for her the first time.

    Trust me, the Golden State is losing their blueish hue, hopefully in favor of a more pinkish tone.
  • You're ignoring the obvious if you think the invasion was about the UN resolutions. A UN force did not go to Iraq, and the UN made no statements authorizing the US invasionon on their behalf. We most certainly were acting in our own best interest and not the UN's, and the phony WMD "evidence" was at the heart of the Bush administration's case for war.
    • You're ignoring the obvious if you think the invasion was about the UN resolutions. A UN force did not go to Iraq, and the UN made no statements authorizing the US invasionon on their behalf.

      So? The U.S. needed no UN authorization for it to be true that part of the reason the U.S. went in was to enforce the UN resolutions. That doesn't even make sense.

      Let's say I am assaulted. I refuse to press charges, but the cops -- as is their right, depending on the crime -- go ahead and track down and arrest the
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • test (Score:2)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) *
    test
  • It is ludicrous for us to search around only being particular about whether there were certainly the excuses for war. It might be the existence of WMDs, or the fact that Iraqi had been violating UN resolusions 1441, but those never be the reasons for America to be able to start the military intervention to Iraq.

    I still believe there was an economical reason for that, mainly for holding oil fields, to make sure enough oil suply in the near future. Whatever the cause for the war was not very important. At

  • Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

    Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to

    • Yes, but that in no way detracts from my point, obviously. It's a given that the US government overstated the case that Iraq had WMD, as the UNSC itself did in Resolution 1441. The question is whether there were other reasons for using force *in the resolution authorizing the use of force,* contrary to what Boxer said, and the answer is quite clearly "aye."
  • First of all, the war was overwhelmingly sold [whitehouse.gov] on the supposition that Saddam was an imminent threat that had be neutralized as soon as possible. Not because he broke U.N. resolutions or because he was a bloody dictator.

    Secondly, what the heck do you think these resolutions were for, anyway? Over half [whitehouse.gov] of them deal with...drum roll...weapons of mass distruction! Most of the rest deal with the first Gulf War, which has been a done deal for some time now.

    So when Boxer said the vote was over WMD's, she was
    • First of all, the war was overwhelmingly sold on the supposition that Saddam was an imminent threat that had be neutralized as soon as possible. Not because he broke U.N. resolutions or because he was a bloody dictator.

      Since I was referring to the contents of the Congressional joint resolution and not how the war was sold, this is entirely irrelevant.

      Secondly, what the heck do you think these resolutions were for, anyway? Over half of them deal with...drum roll...weapons of mass distruction! Most of the
      • Since I was referring to the contents of the Congressional joint resolution and not how the war was sold, this is entirely irrelevant.

        The reasoning behind passing said contents is irrelevant? Quibble much?

        either you can show me how it is true that the joint resolution is about *only WMD*, or you can admit you were wrong and apologize

        Lets see...no. It does not have to be 100% about WMD's. At least 34 out of the 56 U.N. resolutions listed on that page deal with WMD's. Even assuming the rest were sti
        • 90% is overwhelming. Overwhelming justifies the use of "it was about $X, period".

          Not on this planet, no, it doesn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

On a clear disk you can seek forever. -- P. Denning

Close