|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 03:28 PM Original message |
Yes or No answer: Was the IWR working on March 15, 2003? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 03:41 PM Response to Original message |
1. I'm sorry-- could you rephrase the question...? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
htuttle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 03:52 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. I think that was a key flaw of the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 04:42 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. I'm just not convinced they were so naive.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 05:50 PM Response to Reply #1 |
10. That's your interpretation - weapon inspectors weren't in there for kicks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 03:42 PM Response to Original message |
2. No. The WMD were long gone. IWR was unnecessary from the start. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 03:59 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. The weapons inspections were working. The diplomatic efforts were working. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 04:50 PM Response to Reply #4 |
8. I think perhaps you misunderstand the IWR..... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 11:51 PM Response to Reply #4 |
11. I thought Kerry said he regretted voting for it - was he wrong then? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 09:01 AM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Kerry is saying what he needs to say because the reality is that the media |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:02 AM Response to Reply #12 |
13. What are these guidelines of which you speak? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:14 AM Response to Reply #13 |
14. Bush LIED about the "continuing threat" after weapons inspections and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:20 AM Response to Reply #14 |
15. He didn't have to prove a continuing threat |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:29 AM Response to Reply #15 |
17. And yet the UN res was being enforced SUCCESSFULLY as of March 17, 2003. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 11:06 AM Response to Reply #17 |
19. Bush just had to state his opinion on the likelhood of enforcement |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 11:40 AM Response to Reply #19 |
22. His determination was to be after the enforcement of UN res |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:10 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. There's nothing in the IWR about requiring new inspections |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:15 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. Because it is accepted that a president CANNOT lie in an official document |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:36 PM Response to Reply #25 |
28. "To determine" is "to decide" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:18 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. The determination was 'up to him' regardless of the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:39 PM Response to Reply #26 |
29. The IWR gave him more power |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:46 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Support, maybe. Authorize what he ultimately did? I don't believe so. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:56 PM Response to Reply #26 |
33. It's ALWAYS up to a president - that doesn't give him cover to submit an |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 01:14 PM Response to Reply #33 |
35. that's the nub. Bush lied. Broke the law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 08:56 AM Response to Reply #35 |
40. What restraint? "Inform Congress of progress"? that was "IT" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:31 AM Response to Reply #15 |
18. what about the provision that mandated a return to the security council? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 11:12 AM Response to Reply #18 |
20. But the IWR didn't say "all future SC resolutions must be followed ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 11:36 AM Response to Reply #20 |
21. Not quite! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:24 PM Response to Reply #21 |
27. That 'and' just means the invasion shouldn't have affected looking for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:57 PM Response to Reply #27 |
34. No, and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:09 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. If the IWR is so enabling what's in it that would prevent Congress |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 01:24 PM Response to Reply #23 |
41. W - was not-elected so he really has no authority to do jack shit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 08:48 AM Response to Reply #12 |
36. Clark DID mispeak. He had asked Congress not to give W a blank check |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LSK (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 04:43 PM Response to Original message |
6. Yes Inspectors were on the ground and finding nothing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
blm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 04:48 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. IWR referred back to original UN res from 1991 - most people skip over |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mike_c (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Jun-05-06 04:52 PM Response to Reply #7 |
9. only in the preamble, not in the resolution.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bigtree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 10:25 AM Response to Reply #9 |
16. of course, Bush disregarded other relevant provisions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BurtWorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:53 PM Response to Reply #7 |
31. Saddam said he would let inspectors in unconditionally a month before |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BurtWorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Jun-06-06 12:54 PM Response to Original message |
32. IWR was working just as Rove had planned it to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
robbedvoter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 08:52 AM Response to Reply #32 |
38. Bingo! It was nothing more than a trap. For Dems, for Iraq |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mdmc (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 08:50 AM Response to Original message |
37. Yes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Jun-07-06 08:55 AM Response to Original message |
39. The proof of it's effectiveness is in Haditha. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue May 14th 2024, 10:38 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC