Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress was lied to by Bush* ...by bush*s own admittance

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 05:49 PM
Original message
Congress was lied to by Bush* ...by bush*s own admittance
Edited on Fri Sep-19-03 05:50 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htmPublished on Friday, September 19, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Might Bush's Blank Check for War Bounce If He Deceived Congress?
by Thom Hartmann

snip

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, George W. Bush said what virtually every other senior member of his administration had been going out of their way to refute.

"We've had no evidence," he told CNN's John King, "that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the eleventh. No."

This came as a shock to the 70 percent of Americans who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq because they believed Saddam was a mastermind of 9/11 or that Iraqis were among the pilots who hijacked our planes.

But the bigger shock may be to members of Congress, who, hearing that, may now conclude that Bush just admitted he had explicitly misled them.

It started in the months leading up to the 2002 elections. In many parts of the nation Democrats were doing well in the polls, and it looked like Republicans may lose control of the House along with the Senate control they'd lost earlier when Jim Jeffords left the party in disgust.

An October Surprise was needed to turn 9/11 into a partisan issue the Republicans could exploit, some partisans suggest, so congressional allies of the Bush Administration trotted out Public Law 107-243, "A Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."

The law specified that:


"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States...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 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;

"... the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... 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 Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism ... 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;..." that the President could use force against the perpetrators of terrorism, implicitly, of 9/11.

snip

The passage of Public Law 107-243 on October 16, 2002 caused a national uproar, and enabled the Republicans to paint the Democrats as war-wimps, weak on defense, and only grudgingly willing to go along with efforts to get the guy who, as Public Law 107-243 said, "aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..."

more..
CONGRESS BETTER MOVE TO IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. GOOD POST!
Wow!!!

I forgot about the resolution.....The dumb SOB just admitted he lied to Congress!!!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. A republican controlled Congress will not move to impeach bush*
Of course I agree they should, but it just won't happen. If you are a Republican President blow jobs don't even count and you can butt fuck the entire nation and get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. They will if their constituents demand it.
Got any Republican senators or congresspeople in your state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yes I do, but
I'm not even hearing our Democrats in Congress suggesting it, much less luring Republicans to the same camp.

Not a battle I'd chose to fight right now. I just want the bastard out of the White House in 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. yes but my congress person is sweeney..a bush butt licker
hillary and chuckie are my senatorsn tho :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here, lemme fix your link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. thank you karl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. This deserves a big kick to the top. I am sitting here
remembering how the pukes used the weak on defense card and began pushing for the Iraq war right before the elections.

So much for Condi,Bush, and Rummy saying they never said Iraq was connected to 9-11-01.Not only was it said,it was said before Congress and a frickin law was passed because of these lies.

This administration embodies pure evil, how can these people sleep at night?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Apparently they sleep very well. Prozacs anyone??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 11:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Is Thom reading DU????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ignatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-19-03 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Sorry I missed your thread, I had some eye surgery yesterday
and I couldn't see shit.

It looks as if this has been sent to many, maybe this was Kennedy's inspiration today.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zo Zig Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-03 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
12. Question?????
Who or whom, wrote "Public Law 107-243" dated October 16, 2002.
What group or subgroup, my belief is that could be the link in this circle jerk, via the WH and *. *'s letter to the Congress "War Letter to Congress" dated 3/19/03 sites this law, so * can stand behind the curtain and blame who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 14th 2025, 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

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