Mickey Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA Signed in 92 by Bush Sr. Damn I hate when I am right. Went into effect in 94. Yet another thing Clinton didn't do, but took credit for. 522903[/snapback] Signing treaties doesn't mean much, getting them ratified is the trick and NAFTA, for good or ill, would not have passed without Clinton's support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." read on.... http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm 522731[/snapback] Whatever else the Act might have been, it was not a declaration of war nor an authorization for an invasion. The bottom line is that either Iraq was a threat to us enough to warrant a pre-emptive invasion and the whole mess that came with that or it wasn't. I don't care if that Act mandated invasion of Iraq or forbid it. The key is the degreee to which it was a threat in comparison to the cost, not some paper and ink. If it was not, then the war won't be defensible by pointing to this Act or anything else. If it was, then it really doesn't matter what it said or meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts