The big O is at it again

[BenAround]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/obama-fox-news-is-destructive-to-america/?hpt=T2

,,,and never mind MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times...and on, and on.

WOW, the tiny itty bitty crumb of respect I had for him is now TOAST. What a sh*tstain.

[anonlooker]

One in five 'mericans now believe...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1 ... tus,18127/

[Skarp]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/obama-fox-news-is-destructive-to-america/?hpt=T2

,,,and never mind MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times...and on, and on.

Fox News pushes "a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world," Obama said.

"But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number one concern is, it's that Fox is very successful."

Well which is it? Is Fox News pushing a political agenda, or is it a business enterprise responding to the demands of a paying public? The two claims are mutually exclusive.

You want evidence of bias and/or agenda? Look for the media outlets pimping their perspective in the face of ever-declining ratings and revenues. You know they're committed when they elevate ideology over economic viability.

[Dugout Dad]

The main stream media logo

MSM logo.jpeg (5.76 KiB) Viewed 4250 times

[blackwidow]

I had given up on this discussion but what the hell..... You have every right to disagree or play semantics but it's pretty clear that the decision was based on lies therefore the war is illegitimate. Iraq NEVER posed any threat to the U.S.

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property.
------------
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH



107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `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';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

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 the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

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 the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6917.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/200 ... timate.htm

Lastly, I don't consider any of the links in my posts coming from marginal sources. I'd like anyone to point out these marginal thinkers. Which article? Which author do you consider marginal..please post.

Pat Buchanan? I believe Mr. Skarp has posted articles written by Mr. Buchanan written for World Net Daily. Is he the marginal thinker being referred to?

Paul Craig Roberts? Served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D. --Executive Director
American Center for International Law (ACIL)

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. -retired USAF lieutenant colonel and conservative writer.

Jack Hunter? -Conservative radio host and political commentator.

David Krieger? President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Oh I forgot most of the people on this website don't actually READ anything longer than one paragraph. If it's not a contained in a sound bite from FAUX NEWS or CORPORATE NEWS NETWORK it's not worth looking at.

The pro-war jingoism that I read everyday on websites such as this finally got me and I had to post.
I am quite sure that none of my posts will make any difference in the minds of those that are convinced that American Imperialism is making us and the world safe for democracy. My posts are not for you.

Peace.

[Joe]

I had given up on this discussion but what the hell..... You have every right to disagree or play semantics but it's pretty clear that the decision was based on lies therefore the war is illegitimate. Iraq NEVER posed any threat to the U.S.

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property.
------------
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH



107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `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';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

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 the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

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 the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
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.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.


http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6917.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/200 ... timate.htm

Lastly, I don't consider any of the links in my posts coming from marginal sources. I'd like anyone to point out these marginal thinkers. Which article? Which author do you consider marginal..please post.

Pat Buchanan? I believe Mr. Skarp has posted articles written by Mr. Buchanan written for World Net Daily. Is he the marginal thinker being referred to?

Paul Craig Roberts? Served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. Former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service.

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D. --Executive Director
American Center for International Law (ACIL)

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. -retired USAF lieutenant colonel and conservative writer.

Jack Hunter? -Conservative radio host and political commentator.

David Krieger? President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Oh I forgot most of the people on this website don't actually READ anything longer than one paragraph. If it's not a contained in a sound bite from FAUX NEWS or CORPORATE NEWS NETWORK it's not worth looking at.

The pro-war jingoism that I read everyday on websites such as this finally got me and I had to post.
I am quite sure that none of my posts will make any difference in the minds of those that are convinced that American Imperialism is making us and the world safe for democracy. My posts are not for you.

Peace.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

I hope you made your HB donation this month for taking up all this wasted server space.

[SoCalASABlue]

Wow - you actually cite Wikipedia as a trustworthy source?

Were ICBMs found in Iraq? No. Were mustard and sarin gas artillery shells? Yes. Does that count? Or because we have deadlier forms of ordnance those somehow get a pass as WMDs? Did we use chemical weapons in Iraq? Not that I have ever read of. But Hussein gassed his own people. I guess as long as a tyrant only kills his own people it's not really a threat to the world.

Does your Wikipedia source present evidence that Iraqi WMDs are not in Syria, which both political parties have been stating for years is the case since most of those WMDs were sold to Iraq by China, Russia, and North Korea? Or have those classified documents not yet been released by Wikileaks?

Was the sacrifice of all our brave men and women worth ridding the world of a tyrant who commits genocide? I guess it depends on the generation that has to fight the battles. To the greatest generation, hundreds of which we lose daily, it was worth it to rid the world of Hitler and Mussolini.

Are we hypocrites because we go after some (like Hussein) but not others (Mugabe)? Absolutely. That is one of the drawbacks, I guess, of living in a representative republic. We are all beholden to our elected officials and their decisions, whether we like them or not. And our elected officials have decided that sending troops into Africa is not in our national interest. Genocide is genocide - regardless of location. So where do we draw the line?

Considering the alternatives (North Korea, Sudan, et al), I think I'll stay here and do what I can at the ballot box to ensure the strength and safety of this country. In this country, we can have this kind of debate. I doubt either one of us could have had this debate in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or Sudan's Omar al-Bashir.

BTW - On 4 March 2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the first sitting head of state ever indicted by the ICC. Funny how he's still in power even though the "world" agreed he's a war criminal. Yep, those U.N. resolutions are still a mighty tool.

I believe in peace - through superior firepower.

[SoCalASABlue]

One last thing...

If you believe that all the members of the Bush administration are war criminals based on a lack of warehouses of WMDs in Iraq, then everyone of any political party persuasion that supported the joint resolution and subsequently voted to continue to fund the military action even while attacking Bush for "lying" is too...what an interesting series of trials that would be...especially since 99% of Congress are lawyers and "ignorance of the law" is no excuse...basically we'd be left with the DC dogcatcher as President for Life while at least 536 people serve time at the Federal Country Clubs...

On second thought...

[Dugout Dad]

Widow, I'm curious, was our involvement in WWI illegal? What about WWII?

[Skarp]

I had given up on this discussion but what the hell..... You have every right to disagree or play semantics but it's pretty clear that the decision was based on lies therefore the war is illegitimate. Iraq NEVER posed any threat to the U.S.

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

A completely specious argument.

First, that Iraq had WMD's was never seriously in doubt by any credible intelligence source, foreign or domestic. Many WMD's had in fact been previously inventoried in Iraq during the tenure of the previous administration, and Saddam refused to a) provide access to inspectors, or b) provide documentation or other proof of their disposal. So unless they were to believe that megalomaniacal dictators are in the habit of unilaterally disarming themselves, everyone involved was entirely justified in assuming that Iraq still possessed WMD's.

Second, it is logically impossible to prove a negative.

Third, Iraq most certainly did pose a threat to the United States. As an oil-rich state with a nutcase Islamic dictator, a penchant for funding terrorism, and a history which included military attacks on American interests and an actual assassination plot against a former American president, the threat they posed couldn't have been any clearer.

Fourth, we didn't go into Iraq because of their WMD's, or because of any connection with Al Qaeda…at least not centrally. We went into Iraq because it was clear that we could no longer sit idly by while terrorist organizations trained, prepared, recruited, and fund-raised unmolested, with the full or tacit support of governments in that region. We went in because Saddam, in thumbing his nose at 17 UN resolutions, gave us the excuse to do so. We went in to establish a foothold on the actual battlefield, and to thereby exert the pressure of a clear implied threat on every other nation in the region. That's why we went in, and everyone with a brain understood that at the time.

Fifth, Congress has the exclusive power to declare war, or to authorize all force short of such a declaration. Where such force is authorized by Congress, it is, by definition, as legal as legal ever gets.

Sixth, your reading of Section 3 , Paragraph B, couldn't be any more tortured. First, leaving aside the question of whether Iraq posed a threat, which by the terms of the section itself was a determination left to the president's discretion, Section 3(b)(1)(B) allowed for a completely independent justification: namely, the president's determination that further diplomacy would not likely lead to "enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Let's see, Saddam scoffed at the first 17 resolutions…I guess it was probably unreasonable for Bush to conclude that further diplomacy was pointless.

As for the second requirement, per Section 3(b)(2), the only mandate was that the president determine that acting pursuant to the resolution was "consistent" with combatting terrorism, "including" (i.e., not exclusive to) those who perpetrated 9/11.

Did you even bother to read that section before you highlighted it in red and completely mischaracterized its contents? Or were you just regurgitating moonbat propaganda again? Honestly, a child could read that section more accurately. You want serious discussion? Try being serious for a change.