COL Gene COL Gene

YES WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ!

YES WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ!

BAGHDAD - Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose premiership has been dominated by his unpopular decision to join the Iraq war, arrived here on a farewell visit Saturday, and three mortar shells or rockets slammed into the compound where he met with Iraq's leaders.

BAGHDAD - The American military widened the search for three missing U.S. soldiers, detaining nine people in a raid Saturday about 25 miles northwest of where the Americans were captured last weekend.

The U.S. command said Saturday five more American soldiers were killed. One died Saturday from a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. Four died Friday - one in the western province of Anbar, one by small arms fire south of the capital and two by a roadside bomb and small arms fire in northwestern Baghdad, the military said.


TIME TO SEND THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and Draft Dogger Dick to Fight in Iraq
31,158 views 125 replies
Reply #101 Top
If Cuba were to fly attack aircraft


if we had an agreement with cuba letting them fly attack aircraft over florida
and we then attacked the aircraft yes it is an attack

We did not invade Iraq because they shot at our aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq!


i didn't say we did

you said that they hadn't attacked us and they have
Reply #102 Top
However, as I said, democrats said Iraq was a threat and they had WMD's, so since democrats are never wrong and they never lie......well you know the rest.


The democrats did not take this country into a war we are loosing that killed 3,500 Americans, injured 25,000 and will cost about a Trillion Dollars. That was GWB and the Republicans!
Reply #103 Top
The democrats did not take this country into a war


that is right and that is what has the democrats so upset

becouse they are the ones who start wars and it is the republicans that stop them

Reply #104 Top
The democrats did not take this country into a war we are loosing that killed 3,500 Americans, injured 25,000 and will cost about a Trillion Dollars. That was GWB and the Republicans!


You're a moron. Check the vote:


The resolution cited many factors to justify action:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. A statement we now know was not supported by the available evidence.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement. This is under international law not a valid casus belli, and as such attacking Iraq would constitute a war of aggression.
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "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." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."




The Senate adopted the resolution on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23.


Voted in favor
77 Senators voted in favor of the resolution, 48 of the votes cast were from Republican members, and 29 of the members were Democrats.

Wayne Allard (R-CO)
George Allen (R-VA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Bob Bennett (R-UT)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
John Breaux (D-LA)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Jean Carnahan (D-MO)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Max Cleland (D-GA)
Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Larry Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Tom Daschle (D-SD)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
John Edwards (D-NC)

John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Phil Gramm (R-TX)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Jesse Helms (R-NC)
Fritz Hollings (D-SC)
Tim Hutchinson (R-AR)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
James Inhofe (R-OK)
Tim Johnson(D-SD)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Trent Lott (R-MS)
Richard Lugar (R-IN)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Zell Miller (D-GA)
Frank Murkowski (R-AK)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Don Nickles (R-OK)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Robert Smith (R-NH)
Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
Fred Thompson (R-TN)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC)
Robert Torricelli (D-NJ)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
John Warner (R-VA)



Notice how the dems that are now calling to cut and run are for the most part the VERY SAME ones that voted yea in the first place? Quite a few dems voted FOR it!

And while I'm at it....you waht to tell me again who we were "mislead" into this war?
If you want the "whole" text of the resolution, go here:

WWW Link

Or this, part od Billary's speach from senate floor.


October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.


So this crap we're dealing with started under Clinton! Out of her own mouth she said this.
Reply #105 Top
It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

Iraq did not pose ANY danger to the United States and had NO military capability as assessed by the Pentagon in 2002. Saddam had no way to employ any WMD he may have had against the U.S., and was therefore no threat.


and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

We can not unilaterally establish the U.S. as the enforcement agent for UN resolutions. Congress can not act for the UN and that section of the resolution is meaningless.

I am aware that many democrats voted for the resolution predicated of the insistence of Bush that Saddam was a danger. Passage of the resolution, would NEVER have occurred had we known what we know today, did not say we had to invade Iraq. The actual act of invading was on the orders of Bush not the democrats in Congress who went along with Bush and the GOP. Bush is the ONLY reason we invaded Iraq. There was no groundswell from Congress or the American People to invade Iraq. that was BUSH!


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

The UN Weapons Inspectors were back in Iraq and had we allowed them to complete their inspection before we invaded Iraq we would have learned what we know now that Saddam did not have WMD as Bush and Cheney claimed!



Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" Although True, that did not present ANY danger to the U.S. If the Iraqi People did not want to be brutalized by Saddam, they should have removed him from power.


The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

We knew that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11! That section is more BS!


In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

That is fine but that does not mean the United States should invade Iraq.


Reply #106 Top
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

That is fine but that does not mean the United States should invade Iraq.


Hey yo-yo....just "how" do you effect a regime change without boots on the ground?

It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

Iraq did not pose ANY danger to the United States and had NO military capability as assessed by the Pentagon in 2002. Saddam had no way to employ any WMD he may have had against the U.S., and was therefore no threat.


and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

We can not unilaterally establish the U.S. as the enforcement agent for UN resolutions. Congress can not act for the UN and that section of the resolution is meaningless.

I am aware that many democrats voted for the resolution predicated of the insistence of Bush that Saddam was a danger. Passage of the resolution, would NEVER have occurred had we known what we know today, did not say we had to invade Iraq. The actual act of invading was on the orders of Bush not the democrats in Congress who went along with Bush and the GOP. Bush is the ONLY reason we invaded Iraq. There was no groundswell from Congress or the American People to invade Iraq. that was BUSH!


Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

The UN Weapons Inspectors were back in Iraq and had we allowed them to complete their inspection before we invaded Iraq we would have learned what we know now that Saddam did not have WMD as Bush and Cheney claimed!



Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" Although True, that did not present ANY danger to the U.S. If the Iraqi People did not want to be brutalized by Saddam, they should have removed him from power.


The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

We knew that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11! That section is more BS!


You can say all the BS you want.....The above sections that you are bad-mouthing came DIRECT from the SENATE resolution on the Iraq war. So if you don't like it....talk to your senator.
Reply #107 Top
Hey yo-yo....just "how" do you effect a regime change without boots on the ground?


why the dictator is supposed to give up and go away
Reply #108 Top
Hey yo-yo....just "how" do you effect a regime change without boots on the ground?

The same way France did in 1776-- Provide help not invade. No one fought our fight to end the rule of King George the 3rd (must be something about that name George). We had no business sending American Troops to remove Saddam. That is what the people who know this region warned and their warnings have proven correct. Another month of record deaths in Iraq. The Surge IS NOT WORKING. We have lost 104 more and the Iraqi violence continues:

By RAVI NESSMAN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 29, 2007 6:20 AM EDT
BAGHDAD - A parked minibus packed with explosives blew up Tuesday in a busy section of central Baghdad, killing 23 people and injuring 68, police said. A second car bombing in the western part of the capital killed 15 others.

Meanwhile, three German citizens working for a German computer company were kidnapped from the Iraqi Finance Ministry in Baghdad, an Iraqi government official said.
Reply #109 Top
three German citizens


you mean the same germany that was opposed to removal of saddam
Reply #110 Top
here dictator col. gene you want a victory here it is happened on thursday


The fight reflects a trend that U.S. and Iraqi officials have been trumpeting recently to the west in Anbar province, once considered the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. Many Sunni tribes in the province have banded together to fight al-Qaida, claiming the terrorist group is more dangerous than American forces.

WWW Link


of course to get the whole story you will have to follow the link

oh and these are the sunni that are calling usa for help
Reply #111 Top
How do you explain the 120 U.S. Military killed in May?

How do you explain the increase in Iraqi dead in May?
Reply #112 Top
How do you explain the 120 U.S. Military killed in May?

How do you explain the increase in Iraqi dead in May?


WAR
Reply #113 Top
sunni are starting to relized that al quida is more dangerass than the usa is

not my words theirs

if you had read the link

also the us military is now talking to all of the combatants in iraq except al quida about a cease fire and they think they can get 80% to agree.

Reply #114 Top

Reply By: danielost Posted: Friday, June 01, 2007
Sunni are starting to realized that al Qaeda is more dangerous than the USA is

The reason al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq is because of Bush and the Invasion with insufficient troop levels to prevent them from setting up operations. However the majority of the violence is still the fighting g between the Sunni and Shea for control of Iraq!
Reply #115 Top
dictator col. gene can you not come up with something different you keep using the exact same words.

i can save you sometime just record everything it might take up to 30 secounds to do so

it doesn't matter why they are there right now.

the only thing that does matter is that they are there the sunni (oh and al quida is sunni) in iraq no longer want to play with al quida

However the majority of the violence is still the fighting g between the Sunni and Shea for control of Iraq!


there is no/little fighting going on to control iraq. AGAIN THE SHIIA ARE JUST KILLING SUNNI FOR REVENGE FOR THE TIME THAT SADDAM WAS IN POWER AND ALL OF THE DEATH THAT HE CAUSED

i know you forgot all about that didn't you. becouse all you think about is how to make bush look bad no matter what the evidence says
Reply #116 Top
14 More American dead this weekend and Iraqi dead up 50% in May. Yes THIS surge IS WORKING AND MORE MAN MORE Americans AND Iraqi’s ARE BEING KILLED.

Five British were kidnapped by the terrorists and now they demand the British to STOP fighting to give them back. SOME control we have over the violence in Iraq.
Reply #117 Top
14 More American dead this weekend


war

Iraqi dead up 50% in May


so your saying that the total of all iraqi citizens killed has gone up 50% in may

in other words 1,000,000 iraqi citz. were killed in may. (using the mainstream and democrat figures of 2,000,000 before may) which is a bunch of crap.

Five British were kidnapped by the terrorists


about 2 years ago some terriosts kidnapped some egyptions and demanded that they take their troops home. there was only one problem they didn't have any troops in iraq

and do you really think the british are going to stop doing the right thing becouse some troops were kidnapped

would you oh thats right you would give into the demands of the enemy. becouse you think that will stop them from doing it again. it won't it will only impower them to do it again.

GO BACK TO BEING THE SUPPLY OFFICER AND LET THE REAL OFFICERS DO THE FIGHTING


Reply #118 Top
Yes THIS surge IS WORKING AND MORE MAN MORE Americans AND Iraqi’s ARE BEING KILLED.


and i guess that the terriosts were supposed to just stop fighting becouse of more american troops being there.


YOU AND THE DEMOCRATS(WHOM BY THE WAY LOST THEIR LITTLE WAR WITH BUSH) REALLY NEED TO START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES
Reply #119 Top
in other words 1,000,000 Iraqi citz. were killed in may. (using the mainstream and democrat figures of 2,000,000 before may) which is a bunch of crap.

NO YOU ASS. The number of dead is up 50% from preceding Month to over 700. How do so many idiots Blog on this site?


YOU AND THE DEMOCRATS(WHOM BY THE WAY LOST THEIR LITTLE WAR WITH BUSH) REALLY NEED TO START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES.

The vast majority of Americans want this war to come to an end now. This was a loosing situation from day one and in over 4 1/2 years it has just gotten worse. Bush sent our military into an impossible situation with less then 1/3 the troops needed to do the job!
Reply #120 Top
dictator col. gene

here let me save you a lot of trouble

you can quote me becouse this is all you ever say


it is bushes fault. the democrats didn't vote for war.



there that should help now you don't have to type anymore all you have to do is quote the two sentences above becouse that is all you ever say.

ok so there were only 350 civilians killed in may. sounds like the civilian deaths are down for last month.

but you wanted it to sound so much worse. so you wrote it the way you did to confuse everyone.

and my figuares come from the mouths of the democrat leaders in washington and your quotes.

the iraqi health people and the dod put total deaths between 40,000 and 80,000 for the war. yes that is a lot of people and i wish it wasn't necassary. but that is the price of war. how many civilians were killed in ww2 or vietname.

Reply #121 Top
How do so many idiots Blog on this site?


if i was you before i called anyone an idiot i would take a close look at myself.

i don't think you have an original thought in your head.


it is all propaganda
Reply #122 Top
ok so there were only 350 civilians killed in may. sounds like the civilian deaths are down for last month.

No there were over 700 Iraqi dead in may and that is UP Just like the 121 U.S. dead was UP.

i don't think you have an original thought in your head.

You Have NO Thought in your head!!!!!
Reply #123 Top
col political hack Gene,

you are a sick political hack that says and does only what it good for your party rather than your country.
Reply #124 Top
you are a sick political hack that says and does only what it good for your party rather than your country.

If you believe what Bush and the GOP in Congress has done over the past 6 years has benefited our country, you are as wrong as you could be-- Iraq, Budget deficit, Trade, Border Security, Energy, Social Security, Health Care, Education, Spending. NOT ONE of these issues has been made better under Bush and the GOP. I do not know what the Democrats would have done but I do know what the GOP have done is a disaster!
Reply #125 Top
COL Gene


it is bushes fault. the democrats didn't vote for war.


COL Gene


it is bushes fault. the democrats didn't vote for war.


see how is that was dictator col. gene all you have to do is highlight and click quote

that is the only message you send out sicial security has been bad for at least 30 years.

health care is bad here becouse we are paying for the health care of the whole world

education is the unions fault and lets see the teachers union is liberal

and everything else on your list is at least 20 years old and lets see who had 8 years to fix all these problems

and the only thing he did was have sex in the white house and rent out lincolns bedroom

and steal fbi reports around 1000 of them reports even the supreme court can't get hold of

why thats right it was clinton

who also robbed the white house on the way out the door