quote:

ORIGINAL: huskarine

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

this is the quote from Hillary in that speech she gave...and Saddam did not disarm, so we disarmed him.

but none-the-less, she voted to give these powers to the President, thus she supports him for the future as well, hence the vote...

pretty much settles that debate...

quote:

Clinton voted in favor of the resolution - I posted a link earlier - that specified a SERIES of actions for bush to take before using force, ALL of which Bush ignored by going immediately to the invade/occupy option.

Hillary supported the resolution upon which she actually voted - she did NOT support Bush's violation of that (Federal law) in his zeal to get American kids killed.

"You can go out with friends after you get your room cleaned." Kid goes out without cleaning room - did the KID violate the agreement, or did the parent act irresponsibly by *letting* the kid go out?

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

So Americans KNOW that Hussein comes from "HASAN" which means blessing, right? And that's why they keep highlighting "HUSSEIN?" These are not people who support Barack Obama. They do not consider him a blessing. They're entitled to their views, but theirs is not an agenda of support; it's an agenda of fearmongering, knowing that an exaggerated focus on his middle name will remind people of the deposed dictator of Iraq.

Did YOU even KNOW what "Hussein" meant? LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Maybe she didn't actually read it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

What did she think she was voting for?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Clinton voted in favor of the resolution - I posted a link earlier - that specified a SERIES of actions for bush to take before using force, ALL of which Bush ignored by going immediately to the invade/occupy option.

Hillary supported the resolution upon which she actually voted - she did NOT support Bush's violation of that (Federal law) in his zeal to get American kids killed.

"You can go out with friends after you get your room cleaned." Kid goes out without cleaning room - did the KID violate the agreement, or did the parent act irresponsibly by *letting* the kid go out?

The Resolution was pretty clear :

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

Maybe she didn't actually read it?

quote:

Apparently you did not.

The UN Security Council did not direct the United States, or anyone else, to 'enforce' any of its resolutions on Iraq.

Bush did not make any assertion, as required by this Act, to the speaker or the PPT as to the ineffectiveness of further negotiation - he never tried any - nor was this action in any way connected to the 911 attacks, as Bush knew then and knows now.

IOW, and as I originally stated, and as you have graciously posted - Bush did not follow the terms of the so-called War Resolution.

Clinton CANNOT be held accountable for Bush's actions when Bush's actions are so brazenly contrary to the letter and terms of the bill for which Clinton voted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Apparently you did not.

The UN Security Council did not direct the United States, or anyone else, to 'enforce' any of its resolutions on Iraq.

Bush did not make any assertion, as required by this Act, to the speaker or the PPT as to the ineffectiveness of further negotiation - he never tried any - nor was this action in any way connected to the 911 attacks, as Bush knew then and knows now.

IOW, and as I originally stated, and as you have graciously posted - Bush did not follow the terms of the so-called War Resolution.

Clinton CANNOT be held accountable for Bush's actions when Bush's actions are so brazenly contrary to the letter and terms of the bill for which Clinton voted.

She voted to give him authorization to go to war - she could just as easily have voted against it.

quote:

No she did not, a least not directly - for the so-called War Resolution ITSELF did not give Bush authority to go directly to war, as he chose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No she did not, a least not directly - for the so-called War Resolution ITSELF did not give Bush authority to go directly to war, as he chose.

That is what an authorization does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No she did not, a least not directly - for the so-called War Resolution ITSELF did not give Bush authority to go directly to war, as he chose.

That is what an authorization does.

quote:

Try reading it again, and take careful note of the restrictions and decision points required prior to any use of force - which Bush ignored, and which you are choosing to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

No she did not, a least not directly - for the so-called War Resolution ITSELF did not give Bush authority to go directly to war, as he chose.

That is what an authorization does.

Try reading it again, and take careful note of the restrictions and decision points required prior to any use of force - which Bush ignored, and which you are choosing to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Try reading it again, and take careful note of the restrictions and decision points required prior to any use of force - which Bush ignored, and which you are choosing to.

Bush made his case to the UN, but no American President is beholden to the UN - nor does the autherization indicate that.

quote:

Ie, the President is bound in his execution of a war resolution to abide by the terms of the war resolution - which Bush did not so abide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Ie, the President is bound in his execution of a war resolution to abide by the terms of the war resolution - which Bush did not so abide.

Actually, it wasn't so restricted - the actual Authorization clause states plainly:

(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.

The authorization itself is not conditional - nor should it be, because in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, which is the basis for the authorization, UN authorization isn't a requirement - in fact, that would be notably unconsitutional.

quote:

You do know what the linkage 'and' requires in both law and logic, do you not?

It means BOTH conditions, not EITHER, must be met - and as I have demonstrated, Bush violated (b)(a)2 and therefore broke the law in iniitating military action against Iraq IN VIOLATION OF this very War Resolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

So Americans KNOW that Hussein comes from "HASAN" which means blessing, right? And that's why they keep highlighting "HUSSEIN?" These are not people who support Barack Obama. They do not consider him a blessing. They're entitled to their views, but theirs is not an agenda of support; it's an agenda of fearmongering, knowing that an exaggerated focus on his middle name will remind people of the deposed dictator of Iraq.

Did YOU even KNOW what "Hussein" meant? LOL

NO! LOL!!!

But I do know it means "blessing" in a language much more familiar to Muslims. Therefore, they would see themselves as the ones being blessed by him. If it he was a "blessing" to the US of A, then his middle name would be...well...Blessing! LOL!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

So Americans KNOW that Hussein comes from "HASAN" which means blessing, right? And that's why they keep highlighting "HUSSEIN?" These are not people who support Barack Obama. They do not consider him a blessing. They're entitled to their views, but theirs is not an agenda of support; it's an agenda of fearmongering, knowing that an exaggerated focus on his middle name will remind people of the deposed dictator of Iraq.

Did YOU even KNOW what "Hussein" meant? LOL

NO! LOL!!!

But I do know it means "blessing" in a language much more familiar to Muslims. Therefore, they would see themselves as the ones being blessed by him. If it he was a "blessing" to the US of A, then his middle name would be...well...Blessing! LOL!!!

Peter_Gunn, this has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've read here, and believe you me a lot of people write without knowing that which they speak of.

You're wrong on the following counts:

1. Muslims would not necessarily see THEMSELVES as the ONES blessed by him. While they may feel "touched" because Obama's middle name has Semitic roots, it doesn't mean that all the policies Obama were to pursue if elected president would benefit ALL Muslims - none the less because the Muslim world is a spectrum full of varieties and shades. The Muslim world is not a monolith.
2. Jews are Semitic too, and they would be familiar with the word "hasan" which is the root word of "Hussein." But if your logic were to apply, American Jews and Israelis should technically favor Obama because since "Hussein" means "blessing" in a "language much more familiar to" Jews, Jews "would see themselves as the ones being blessed by him."
3. Your insinuation that to be relevant to America, his middle name would have to be one in English is nothing short of ignorant. There have been several important figures in American history whose names were not of Anglo-Saxon origin; in fact, some actually had Arab-sounding names, and they played significant roles in US history, and the case can be made they were positive roles - roles of "blessing." That you actually think that for someone to be a "blessing" to America, his name would have to literally be the word "blessing" can only be taken as evidence of your failure to grasp the facts re: language and culture in traditional societies; OR, the fact that you are most probably another monolingual American; or, an attempt at witty humor (in which case you have failed miserably).

quote:

(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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

Yes, unfortunately there were plenty of SPINELESS Senators who voted for a resolution that led to one of the worst foreign policy moves in US history.

quote:

(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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn
Oh, well...back to my red corner to read up on my Arabic!

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

quote:

ORIGINAL: wing2000

Yes, unfortunately there were plenty of SPINELESS Senators who voted for a resolution that led to one of the worst foreign policy moves in US history.

quote:

(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.

One that some historians have decried as one of the most foolish military ventures in the history of war - one which we will not win, and one which has increased terror, heightened already high levels of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, generated 4 million Iraqi refugees, cost dozens of thousands of US casualties (summing dead and wounded; many of the latter will deal w/ physical disabilities and mental/psychological issues for the rest of their lives), killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, unleashed a civil war in Iraq, created the settings for Islamic extremists to persecute previously left-alone Iraqi Christians who had the freedom to worship Jesus Christ in peace, and has propelled Iran to the summit in the region's balance of power (sans of course nuclear-armed Israel).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac
Nice motivational speech for terrorists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP
One that some historians have decried as one of the most foolish military ventures in the history of war - one which we will not win, and one which has increased terror, heightened already high levels of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, generated 4 million Iraqi refugees, cost dozens of thousands of US casualties (summing dead and wounded; many of the latter will deal w/ physical disabilities and mental/psychological issues for the rest of their lives), killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, unleashed a civil war in Iraq, created the settings for Islamic extremists to persecute previously left-alone Iraqi Christians who had the freedom to worship Jesus Christ in peace, and has propelled Iran to the summit in the region's balance of power (sans of course nuclear-armed Israel).

Nice motivational speech for terrorists.