Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mr. Intenseone on May 10, 2007, 08:44:09 AM
-
When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.
This has been the mantra of leading Democrats since the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, pulled his stunt to force the Senate into "closed session" as a "protest" over the supposed foot-dragging of Senate Republicans in the "Phase II" investigation looking into the matter. ("Phase I," which looked into allegations that the administration pressured the U.S. intelligence community to "cook" the intelligence to support the war, concluded, without a single Democrat dissent, that no such pressure took place). And now, to complete the farce, Senator John Kerry, during a press conference on November 14, proclaimed "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."
Senator Kerry, one might recall, built his political career on his status as a "war hero" in Vietnam, due to the fact that he amazingly, in four months time, was awarded three purple hearts (giving him a free ticket home), for wounds that, upon further scrutiny, appear, well, hyped. His most serious wound seems to have been unintentionally self-inflicted, and the first, of unknown origin, required treatment with a dab of Neosporin ointment. Upon returning home he made a name for himself by accusing U.S. soldiers of routinely committing atrocities, which he now admits he never actually saw, and which may not have been true. And then, of course, there is his famous story of his Christmas incursion into Cambodia, "seared" into his memory, strangely seared, since it, too, never happened. And during his presidential campaign he gave the distinct impression that he had met with "foreign leaders" who endorsed his candidacy, "negotiated treaties" while serving as a senator, and had been a much better college student than the idiot George W. Bush -- all of which turned out to be untrue.
Senator Kerry is, in fact, the Great Deceiver. So it is fitting that he has now taken up the Democratic crusade against George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to the Senate and to the American people on the basis of, well, let's be honest, next to no evidence, and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
So far, the heart of the Democratic case seems to be one CIA document, declassified with great fanfare by Senator Carl Levin, which questions the credibility of one source regarding one issue (the training of al-Qaeda personnel in Iraq). But it is not clear that Bush was ever given this particular document, or that members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees did not have access to it. What is clear, however, is that the CIA had other sources that corroborated the story, and CIA chief George Tenet felt that the overall evidence supported the story, regardless of the credibility issues of one source. It is certainly ironic that this cherry-picked document, in the Democrats' eyes, qualifies as damning evidence that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence to "mislead" the country into war.
It is also fitting, and ironic, that the Democratic leadership, which has used language comparing the actions of U.S. military personnel with that of Nazis (as in Senator Dick Durbin's infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, broadcast throughout the Middle East via al-Jazeera, for which he eventually felt compelled to apologize), now seems so adept at employing the propaganda strategy described by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as "the Big Lie." Unfortunately, this Big Lie has been working (with the "mainstream" news media reporting the Democrats' daily accusations, with barely a mention of inconvenient facts to the contrary), and a majority of Americans now say that they believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied about Saddam's WMD programs in order to push an "unnecessary war." But as any watcher of public opinion polls knows, these sentiments can change.
Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not?
The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so. It is what the Michael Mooron base of the party desires, and with the American public showing weariness of the war and of hearing the casualty figures reported daily in the media, the time is ripe, they calculate, to hammer Bush on the war. The only problem is, much of the Democratic leadership supported going to war. That dilemma is solved, in their mind, by pushing the argument that they were "misled" by Bush into doing so. This may turn out to be a bit uncomfortable for the Democrats' probable 2008 presidential candidate -- Hilary Clinton -- who is already on record as admitting that the intelligence used by the Bush administration was consistent with the intelligence assessments during the Bill Clinton presidency. But the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, it is the Democratic priority to discredit the U.S. Commander in Chief, in time of war, simply because he's a Republican.
History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush "lying us into war." And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership's current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can't continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats' smear campaign.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9035
-
Wow........nothing on this?? Surprise surprise!
-
probably cause it's not significant and certainly neotaint slanted and everyone is tired of reading your cut and paste.
-
probably cause it's not significant and certainly neotaint slanted and everyone is tired of reading your cut and paste.
What he said.
-
MR I needs to formulate his own rants. I fall in his camp on most things but u guys hate Rush so he can't win. Rush has apologized way to much for Bush and especially the VP and the former secdef.
-
Did Mr. I get sodomized by Bill Clinton or something? ???
-
I agree ... Clinton was crap just not as crap as Bush.
-
probably cause it's not significant and certainly neotaint slanted and everyone is tired of reading your cut and paste.
The main problem, is that it's cut and paste through and through.
Would be very nice to see own ideas and reflections once in awhile.
But then again, we get to read a lot of Limbaugh material, which is good, since so many people listen to Limbaugh to know what to think about issues.
-Hedge
-
I agree ... Clinton was crap just not as crap as Bush.
no doubt about it.just because pres.bush,cheny are the worst leadership in history doesn't mean the leaders before were that great they were just not as bad.
-
I think that no one responded because with the exception of a few people, everyone on here realizes that both parties lie daily. Why bother reading about one more instance.
-
When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs.
None of these assertions changes the fact that President Bush broke international law and violated the US Constitution by ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq.
George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk."
This statement mischaracterizes the statement "a slam dunk.” That phrase was in reference to selling the WMD story to the American public and not to the existence of Iraqi WMDs.
Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.
Bush’s constant pairing of 9/11/Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in every speech he gave (and any Bush adm. Member gave) running up to the war shows quite plainly he’s a liar.
Or else almost 70% of the American public simultaneously drew the same erroneous conclusion that Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11.
This has been the mantra of leading Democrats since the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, pulled his stunt to force the Senate into "closed session" as a "protest" over the supposed foot-dragging of Senate Republicans in the "Phase II" investigation looking into the matter. ("Phase I," which looked into allegations that the administration pressured the U.S. intelligence community to "cook" the intelligence to support the war, concluded, without a single Democrat dissent, that no such pressure took place). And now, to complete the farce, Senator John Kerry, during a press conference on November 14, proclaimed "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."
Kerry was correct. See the above lies of the president.
Senator Kerry, one might recall, built his political career on his status as a "war hero" in Vietnam, due to the fact that he amazingly, in four months time, was awarded three purple hearts (giving him a free ticket home), for wounds that, upon further scrutiny, appear, well, hyped. His most serious wound seems to have been unintentionally self-inflicted, and the first, of unknown origin, required treatment with a dab of Neosporin ointment. Upon returning home he made a name for himself by accusing U.S. soldiers of routinely committing atrocities, which he now admits he never actually saw, and which may not have been true. And then, of course, there is his famous story of his Christmas incursion into Cambodia, "seared" into his memory, strangely seared, since it, too, never happened. And during his presidential campaign he gave the distinct impression that he had met with "foreign leaders" who endorsed his candidacy, "negotiated treaties" while serving as a senator, and had been a much better college student than the idiot George W. Bush -- all of which turned out to be untrue.
Kerry served in Viet Nam—The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been thoroughly debunked. Kerry was correct about the war crimes attendant to Viet Nam (Mai Lai Massacre?). The rest of that crap is innuendo not worth mentioning.
Senator Kerry is, in fact, the Great Deceiver. So it is fitting that he has now taken up the Democratic crusade against George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to the Senate and to the American people on the basis of, well, let's be honest, next to no evidence, and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
No evidence? Look at any speech Bush gave up to the illegal invasion and you will find the 9/11/Al Qaeda connection with Hussein.
So far, the heart of the Democratic case seems to be one CIA document, declassified with great fanfare by Senator Carl Levin, which questions the credibility of one source regarding one issue (the training of al-Qaeda personnel in Iraq). But it is not clear that Bush was ever given this particular document, or that members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees did not have access to it. What is clear, however, is that the CIA had other sources that corroborated the story, and CIA chief George Tenet felt that the overall evidence supported the story, regardless of the credibility issues of one source. It is certainly ironic that this cherry-picked document, in the Democrats' eyes, qualifies as damning evidence that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence to "mislead" the country into war.
The heart of the case against Bush is not lying, it’s his violation of the US constitution for ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq, spying on Americans, ordering torture, and generally eviscerating the 4th, 6th and 8th amendments to the Constitution.
As for proving a politcian lied, Hell, even with a semen soaked dress the Republicans couldn’t prove that President Clinton lied about a sexual relationship. It’s very difficult to prove.
It is also fitting, and ironic, that the Democratic leadership, which has used language comparing the actions of U.S. military personnel with that of Nazis (as in Senator Dick Durbin's infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, broadcast throughout the Middle East via al-Jazeera, for which he eventually felt compelled to apologize), now seems so adept at employing the propaganda strategy described by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as "the Big Lie." Unfortunately, this Big Lie has been working (with the "mainstream" news media reporting the Democrats' daily accusations, with barely a mention of inconvenient facts to the contrary), and a majority of Americans now say that they believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied about Saddam's WMD programs in order to push an "unnecessary war." But as any watcher of public opinion polls knows, these sentiments can change.
Al Qaeda/WMDs and Hussein—repeat a few thousand times and you have the BIG LIE just like Mr. Goebbels talked about.
Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not?
Who cares what anyone believed about WMDs in Iraq in the run up to the illegal invasion?
The findings of the WMD Inspectors ON THE GROUND in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion is what mattered. Their findings would have been sufficient as to whether use of force was necessary. Too bad Bush illegally ordered the attack cutting off the inspections before they were completed.
The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so. It is what the Michael Mooron base of the party desires, and with the American public showing weariness of the war and of hearing the casualty figures reported daily in the media, the time is ripe, they calculate, to hammer Bush on the war. The only problem is, much of the Democratic leadership supported going to war. That dilemma is solved, in their mind, by pushing the argument that they were "misled" by Bush into doing so. This may turn out to be a bit uncomfortable for the Democrats' probable 2008 presidential candidate -- Hilary Clinton -- who is already on record as admitting that the intelligence used by the Bush administration was consistent with the intelligence assessments during the Bill Clinton presidency. But the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, it is the Democratic priority to discredit the U.S. Commander in Chief, in time of war, simply because he's a Republican.
Irrelevant speculation and mind reading.
History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush "lying us into war." And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership's current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can't continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats' smear campaign.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9035
Lying is difficult to prove. But we don't need to show that Bush lied to demonstrate how he has violated the US Constitution multiple times.
Why wait for history to judge this criminal administration? We could do it right now.
-
I think that no one responded because with the exception of a few people, everyone on here realizes that both parties lie daily. Why bother reading about one more instance.
Very well said. :)
-
Very well said. :)
I am so tired of "repugs did this, neotaints did this" blah blah blah.
-
I am so tired of "repugs did this, neotaints did this" blah blah blah.
Well, i can't speak for others, but IMO, neotaints got us into one screwed situation in Iraq do to their incompetence.
-
Well, i can't speak for others, but IMO, neotaints got us into one screwed situation in Iraq do to their incompetence.
I don't see it as incompetence. I see everything going exactly as planned.
We have 300,000 men there, if you count the contractors too. We know there are only 2500 insurgents.
Now, one of two things is happening. Either:
1) Despite an over 100 to 1 edge in Us:them, and a huge money/firepower/technology edge, they have eluded us for 4 years, or
2) Things are being managed - purposely - so that we DON'T win yet - until the pipeline is finished.
Which do you think makes more sense? And if the primary purpose of the war WAS oil, then wouldn't #2 make a LOT of sense? (To stall ending the war because we lose our pipeline ability at that point)
-
I don't see it as incompetence. I see everything going exactly as planned.
We have 300,000 men there, if you count the contractors too. We know there are only 2500 insurgents.
Now, one of two things is happening. Either:
1) Despite an over 100 to 1 edge in Us:them, and a huge money/firepower/technology edge, they have eluded us for 4 years, or
2) Things are being managed - purposely - so that we DON'T win yet - until the pipeline is finished.
Which do you think makes more sense? And if the primary purpose of the war WAS oil, then wouldn't #2 make a LOT of sense? (To stall ending the war because we lose our pipeline ability at that point)
I'm sorry 240. I know you have explained this before, but can you please explain why we need to keep a state of chaos in Iraq to build a pipeline? Why couldn't we build it with stability? What would happen if we leave and their is instability? It's early here, my head is full of cotton ;D
-
I'm sorry 240. I know you have explained this before, but can you please explain why we need to keep a state of chaos in Iraq to build a pipeline? Why couldn't we build it with stability? What would happen if we leave and their is instability? It's early here, my head is full of cotton ;D
We have made two things very clear to Iraq, the UN, and our nation:
1) We will not leave until there is relative peace in iraq, and
2) We will leave as soon as the Iraqi govt asks us, as long as there is stability.
There is instability now. So we cannot leave. We are using a big chunk of those 300,000 men not for security - but to build that pipeline. They're working like madmen to get it done.
If there is peace - the Iraqi leaders have made it VERY clear - they'll ask us to leave so they can split the il revenues NOT with the US firms helping them out - but between the three regions and let them manage their assets. In orther words, when he came to DC< al-Maliki told the world that he wants the US out, asap.
We're building a huge pipeline. We have 14 huge, permanent US bases. It would make zero sense to build permanent bases if we didn't plan on staying. It would make no sense to build them a pipeline if we don't plan on using it.
-
We have made two things very clear to Iraq, the UN, and our nation:
1) We will not leave until there is relative peace in iraq, and
2) We will leave as soon as the Iraqi govt asks us, as long as there is stability.
There is instability now. So we cannot leave. We are using a big chunk of those 300,000 men not for security - but to build that pipeline. They're working like madmen to get it done.
If there is peace - the Iraqi leaders have made it VERY clear - they'll ask us to leave so they can split the il revenues NOT with the US firms helping them out - but between the three regions and let them manage their assets. In orther words, when he came to DC< al-Maliki told the world that he wants the US out, asap.
We're building a huge pipeline. We have 14 huge, permanent US bases. It would make zero sense to build permanent bases if we didn't plan on staying. It would make no sense to build them a pipeline if we don't plan on using it.
ok, hmmm. any news or links of this pipeline? I know you posted something with maps a few days back. I been busy in another board lately, so that's where my time has been going.
-
I'm sure jag can tell ya more than I can - the US media doesn't bring it up. When Dennis Kuscinich did on Tucker recently (MSNBC), they instantly had "mic difficulties" and he was cut off.
google has a lot on it. I don't read int'l media like I used to (time!) so i can't tell you about the status or whatever. But we admit we're building "iraqi oil infrastructure" and the pics are everywhere on google, and recently, Cheney especially - haven't even hid the fact that we WILL be managing iraqi resources.
-
everyone is tired of reading your cut and paste.
People cut and paste all the time to start debates and it's mostly the liberal posters with their spin........like a true liberal Oz, you have a double standard, but I guess when a liberal or dem posts a cut and paste it's ok?
Look through my posts, there's alot more of my opinion on here than there is "cut and "paste"
-
None of these assertions changes the fact that President Bush broke international law and violated the US Constitution by ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq.
This statement mischaracterizes the statement "a slam dunk.” That phrase was in reference to selling the WMD story to the American public and not to the existence of Iraqi WMDs.
Bush’s constant pairing of 9/11/Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in every speech he gave (and any Bush adm. Member gave) running up to the war shows quite plainly he’s a liar.
Or else almost 70% of the American public simultaneously drew the same erroneous conclusion that Hussein was behind the attacks of 9/11.
Kerry was correct. See the above lies of the president.
Kerry served in Viet Nam—The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been thoroughly debunked. Kerry was correct about the war crimes attendant to Viet Nam (Mai Lai Massacre?). The rest of that crap is innuendo not worth mentioning.
No evidence? Look at any speech Bush gave up to the illegal invasion and you will find the 9/11/Al Qaeda connection with Hussein.
The heart of the case against Bush is not lying, it’s his violation of the US constitution for ordering the illegal invasion of Iraq, spying on Americans, ordering torture, and generally eviscerating the 4th, 6th and 8th amendments to the Constitution.
As for proving a politcian lied, Hell, even with a semen soaked dress the Republicans couldn’t prove that President Clinton lied about a sexual relationship. It’s very difficult to prove.
Al Qaeda/WMDs and Hussein—repeat a few thousand times and you have the BIG LIE just like Mr. Goebbels talked about.
Who cares what anyone believed about WMDs in Iraq in the run up to the illegal invasion?
The findings of the WMD Inspectors ON THE GROUND in Iraq prior to the illegal invasion is what mattered. Their findings would have been sufficient as to whether use of force was necessary. Too bad Bush illegally ordered the attack cutting off the inspections before they were completed.
Irrelevant speculation and mind reading.
Lying is difficult to prove. But we don't need to show that Bush lied to demonstrate how he has violated the US Constitution multiple times.
Why wait for history to judge this criminal administration? We could do it right now.
Spin.
Spoken like a true bandwagon liberal who thinks everyone is wrong but them!
-
Spin.
Spoken like a true bandwagon liberal who thinks everyone is wrong but them!
What you just said makes no sense.
Conclusions with no factual support seem to be your MO for debate.
That's why you lose every time.
It's why you lost now.
-
What you just said makes no sense.
Conclusions with no factual support seem to be your MO for debate.
That's why you lose every time.
Really? Where are your facts to support your spin?
-
People cut and paste all the time to start debates and it's mostly the liberal posters with their spin........like a true liberal Oz, you have a double standard, but I guess when a liberal or dem posts a cut and paste it's ok?
Look through my posts, there's alot more of my opinion on here than there is "cut and "paste"
No, you got it all wrong. (which isn't surprising considering you get most things wrong and totally miss the point even though it's spelled out for you)
People do cut and paste all the time AND write out their opinions also. You mostly cut and paste long drawn out Rush articles that people are tired of reading and therefore usually don't read.
Then you barely provide any legitimate competent arguments when you do debate.
You mostly just lace your dribble with attack on lib stereotypes.
That's why you are mostly laughed at here.
But you probably think that laughing is a "lib" thing don't you? ::)
-
Spoken like a true bandwagon liberal who thinks everyone is wrong but them!
You do a lot of negative namecalling, and labeling. As does Rush and OReilly.
I watch/listen to them, and I watch/listen to far left media. I notice one difference:
The far left media focuses on the actions of what Bush does, and points out the negatives.
The far right media focuses on what they see as character flaws in the libs, and what they "might" do if they were in charge.
You see this when Olbermann spends 8 minutes showing inconsistencies in statements by Bush - while OReilly spends that same 8 minutes telling his listeners why "Liberals hate america". Olbermann's statement contains videotaped evidence, undeniable. OReilly's does not.
-
Really? Where are your facts to support your spin?
The WMD inspectors were let into iraq in late 2002.
The inspectors published a report in January of 2003 showing no weapons were found.
March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating w/ the inspections and no WMDs had been found yet.
Res. 1441 required a reconvening of the Security Council upon finding of WMDs to determine if use of force is necessary.
Under res. 1441 No country may unilaterally stand in the shoes of the Security Council to use force
Bush ordered the invasion on March 20, 2003 before the inspectors could finish their job and with no legal authority.
Or are all those facts just spin too?
-
Look through my posts, there's alot more of my opinion on here than there is "cut and "paste"
No offence, but these are the last threads you started on the Political board:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147654.msg2067493#msg2067493 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147653.msg2067464#msg2067464 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147444.msg2065795#msg2065795 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124715.msg1782384#msg1782384 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147339.msg2064745#msg2064745 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147272.msg2063776#msg2063776 (No actual C&P, just a link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147139.msg2062177#msg2062177 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147033.msg2060652#msg2060652 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=146915.msg2059110#msg2059110 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145838.msg2051718#msg2051718 (Two sentences, link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145551.msg2047992#msg2047992 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145546.msg2047930#msg2047930 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145462.msg2046671#msg2046671 (Cut and Paste)
That's May.
When do you post opinion?
-Hedge
-
The inspectors published a report in January of 2003 showing no weapons were found.
March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating w/ the inspections and no WMDs had been found yet.
Interesting - repeatedly I hear "EVERYONE thought there were WMDs".
Turns out the people who were IN iraq doing inspections did not.
Yikes.
-
Interesting - repeatedly I hear "EVERYONE thought there were WMDs".
Turns out the people who were IN iraq doing inspections did not.
Yikes.
The "Bush Lied" argument by the right wing is a Red Herring. The real issue is that Bush misused the Congressional grant of authority to use force.
He broke the law.
As for the "lie" argument: Of course he lied.
Proving that is another matter.
Like I said, the republicans could not prove Clinton lied about having sex with Lewinsky even though they had a semen stained dress--smoking gun.
-
Interesting - repeatedly I hear "EVERYONE thought there were WMDs".
Turns out the people who were IN iraq doing inspections did not.
Yikes.
You didn't know this?
Yikes.
-Hedge
-
No offence, but these are the last threads you started on the Political board:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147654.msg2067493#msg2067493 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147653.msg2067464#msg2067464 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147444.msg2065795#msg2065795 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124715.msg1782384#msg1782384 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147339.msg2064745#msg2064745 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147272.msg2063776#msg2063776 (No actual C&P, just a link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147139.msg2062177#msg2062177 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147033.msg2060652#msg2060652 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=146915.msg2059110#msg2059110 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145838.msg2051718#msg2051718 (Two sentences, link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145551.msg2047992#msg2047992 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145546.msg2047930#msg2047930 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145462.msg2046671#msg2046671 (Cut and Paste)
That's May.
When do you post opinion?
-Hedge
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
Must a liberal conspiracy to use facts instead of opinion!
I think it's safe to say you been owned like a liberal "bee on a watch". ;)
-
You didn't know this?
Yikes.
-Hedge
I remember it. back then, I was one of those "Fck hans blix and france! I don't care what they found. Saddam needs to die!"
Like Mr I, I was basing my opinion not in law or evidence, but in a blind support for Bush.
-
Hans bwicks do u know busy I am hans bwicks............. ;D
-
I remember it. back then, I was one of those "Fck hans blix and france! I don't care what they found. Saddam needs to die!"
Like Mr I, I was basing my opinion not in law or evidence, but in a blind support for Bush.
Ok.
I see where you coming from. It's always good to get a perspective on why support is given, and facts are sometimes overlooked.
Would be interesting to sometime hear about your own reflection about the Bush Years, once he's out of office. Since you worked his campaign and all, also been watching the US media outlets during these years.
-Hedge
-
No offence, but these are the last threads you started on the Political board:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147654.msg2067493#msg2067493 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147653.msg2067464#msg2067464 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147444.msg2065795#msg2065795 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=124715.msg1782384#msg1782384 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147339.msg2064745#msg2064745 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147272.msg2063776#msg2063776 (No actual C&P, just a link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147139.msg2062177#msg2062177 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=147033.msg2060652#msg2060652 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=146915.msg2059110#msg2059110 (Link, no text)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145838.msg2051718#msg2051718 (Two sentences, link)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145551.msg2047992#msg2047992 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145546.msg2047930#msg2047930 (Cut and Paste)
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=145462.msg2046671#msg2046671 (Cut and Paste)
That's May.
When do you post opinion?
-Hedge
Nice job of researching.
Mr. I. might even be an intelligent guy but his posts are so fueled by hate and propaganda that there's no way to really know. Although I suppose that fact that he spews and posts pure right wing propaganda is a sign in and of itself.
-
Hans bwicks do u know busy I am hans bwicks............. ;D
Blix has acknowledged in interviews that the threat of invasion from USA, made it possible to do effective and thorough inspections all over the place, and get the access he demanded from Iraq.
-Hedge
-
In which he found nothing..so either it never was or it was moved. I have read a few books about their WMD programs and they said that Saddam did have stuff he might have moved..who knows.
-
I see where you coming from. It's always good to get a perspective on why support is given, and facts are sometimes overlooked.
Would be interesting to sometime hear about your own reflection about the Bush Years, once he's out of office. Since you worked his campaign and all, also been watching the US media outlets during these years.
I didn't work FOR his campaign. I helped the campus republicans, debated people, converted people, and drove folks to vote, because I believed in Bush. It was only a year after the 2004 election I began to see the truth about things.
I remember the 2000 mess, when the courts awarded him the election. And I remember the 2004 election - when the Repubs SUED to keep the paper votes from being counted, after the statistical improbability of them winning the e-machine.
I read all about it back then, and I KNEW that we stole Ohio. We joked about it, the campus repubs. "Fck it - whatever it takes to get in the white house".
So yes, I was a piece of shit that cared more about my party "winning" than the right thing. Which is why I so quickly identify weaknesses and inconsistencies in teh arguments of far right folks - I USED TO BE THAT.
-
I didn't work FOR his campaign. I helped the campus republicans, debated people, converted people, and drove folks to vote, because I believed in Bush. It was only a year after the 2004 election I began to see the truth about things.
I remember the 2000 mess, when the courts awarded him the election. And I remember the 2004 election - when the Repubs SUED to keep the paper votes from being counted, after the statistical improbability of them winning the e-machine.
I read all about it back then, and I KNEW that we stole Ohio. We joked about it, the campus repubs. "Fck it - whatever it takes to get in the white house".
So yes, I was a piece of shit that cared more about my party "winning" than the right thing. Which is why I so quickly identify weaknesses and inconsistencies in teh arguments of far right folks - I USED TO BE THAT.
FWIW,
GOP is not synonymous with Bush. :-\
Giuliani and Romney ain't Bush. Neither is McCain.
-Hedge
-
FWIW,
GOP is not synonymous with Bush. :-\
Giuliani and Romney ain't Bush. Neither is McCain.
-Hedge
Sadly he's turning into Bush with his change in position and his pandering to the GOP. You're right about Giuliani and Romney though.
-
Blix has acknowledged in interviews that the threat of invasion from USA, made it possible to do effective and thorough inspections all over the place, and get the access he demanded from Iraq.
-Hedge
That's a good point. The president's sabre rattling was more than effective to elicit compliance.
Like a bully though, he went too far.
-
No offence, but these are the last threads you started on the Political board:
That's May.
When do you post opinion?
-Hedge
Hey Zack, the cut and paste and links that I post are a direct correlation on my thoughts and opinions in other posts that I respond to, if I responded to every link that I post, it would basically be the same thing over and over again. Get it?
-
links that I post are a direct correlation on my thoughts and opinions in other posts that I respond to, if I responded to every link that I post, it would basically be the same thing over and over again. Get it?
Excellent! Thanks for acknowledging that your thoughts and opinions are nothing more than verbatim transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's! Rush doesn't want you to think for yourself, so march on Christian solider!
-
The WMD inspectors were let into iraq in late 2002.
The inspectors published a report in January of 2003 showing no weapons were found.
March 7, 2003 Hans Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating w/ the inspections and no WMDs had been found yet.
Res. 1441 required a reconvening of the Security Council upon finding of WMDs to determine if use of force is necessary.
Under res. 1441 No country may unilaterally stand in the shoes of the Security Council to use force
Bush ordered the invasion on March 20, 2003 before the inspectors could finish their job and with no legal authority.
Or are all those facts just spin too?
No, not even close, I'm going strickly by memory right now and will have to find it later, but if I recall there was something along the lines of another prominant inspector that testified or said something to the effect that Blix had a some sort of a find or evidence that Huissan had weapons but Blix didn't disclose it in his report. Remember he was a UNInspector, there not exactly known for doing their jobs!
-
The "Bush Lied" argument by the right wing is a Red Herring. The real issue is that Bush misused the Congressional grant of authority to use force.
He broke the law.
As for the "lie" argument: Of course he lied.
Proving that is another matter.
Like I said, the republicans could not prove Clinton lied about having sex with Lewinsky even though they had a semen stained dress--smoking gun.
Bush "broke the law," then Congress endorsed his actions. Does that mean Congress "broke the law" too?
Bush no more lied than the plethora of Democrats who told the American people that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
They absolutely proved Clinton lied. That's why he was impeached and why he lost his law license.
-
Excellent! Thanks for acknowledging that your thoughts and opinions are nothing more than verbatim transcripts of Rush Limbaugh's! Rush doesn't want you to think for yourself, so march on Christian solider!
Bullshit, did I say verbatim? you listen to your sources and draw your conclusions from that.......you know, the CT sites, Olbermann, Franken, etc and unless your really in the middle on things in DC you have to find out from some other source that has what we both think has some commonsense beit Liberal or Conservative.
You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!
-
Bullshit, did I say verbatim? you listen to your sources and draw your conclusions from that.......you know, the CT sites, Olbermann, Franken and unless your really in the middle on things in DC you have to find out from some other source that has what we both think has some commonsense beit Liberal or Conservative.
You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!
You admited that you had nothing of your own to add to what Rush says. Like Rush, you have zero credibility.
-
You admited that you had nothing of your own to add to what Rush says. Like Rush, you have zero credibility.
OK ::)
If Rush has no credibility, why how come he has the biggest listening audience in Radio and why does his name get mentioned on the senate floor so often? How about, because he has the power to help persuade votes?
-
No, not even close, I'm going strickly by memory right now and will have to find it later, but if I recall there was something along the lines of another prominant inspector that testified or said something to the effect that Blix had a some sort of a find or evidence that Huissan had weapons but Blix didn't disclose it in his report. Remember he was a UNInspector, there not exactly known for doing their jobs!
Wrong again.
You post your nameless inspector and I'll post All the the BLix reports which concluded that NO WMDS were being found. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/chronology.asp http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp
You will find links to Blix's reports about WMDs in Iraq...I mean the absence of WMDs in Iraq.
Who was right about the WMDs in Iraq again?
Oh that's right, (all together now) "Hans Blix was right and Pres. Bush (and you) were wrong."
-
Bush "broke the law," then Congress endorsed his actions. Does that mean Congress "broke the law" too?
Bush no more lied than the plethora of Democrats who told the American people that Saddam had WMDs and was a threat.
They absolutely proved Clinton lied. That's why he was impeached and why he lost his law license.
Congress granted Bush the authority to use force when necessary under the War Powers resolution.
Bush needed to exercise that grant of authority in accordance w/ various standards and treatises to execute a legal use of force, i.e., no war crimes.
Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the WMD resolutions against Iraq. Remember Powell's disgraceful performance?
Under Res. 1441 the president was not authorized to order any use of force until a finding of WMDs and a subsequent holding by the UN Security Council that use of force was necessary.
Bush ordered the invasion and warned the inspectors to get out of Iraq before they'd finished their jobs.
This has nothing to do with the grant of authority by Congress.
This illegal invasion is all Bush's doing.
-
...You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!
Wrong.
My arguments are superior to yours.
I use fact based arguments.
You don't.
I present the legal framework for why the invasion is illegal.
You offer nothing but a weak and irrelevant point that Blix is not competent.
-
Congress granted Bush the authority to use force when necessary under the War Powers resolution.
Bush needed to exercise that grant of authority in accordance w/ various standards and treatises to execute a legal use of force, i.e., no war crimes.
Bush went to the UN and asked to enforce the WMD resolutions against Iraq. Remember Powell's disgraceful performance?
Under Res. 1441 the president was not authorized to order any use of force until a finding of WMDs and a subsequent holding by the UN Security Council that use of force was necessary.
Bush ordered the invasion and warned the inspectors to get out of Iraq before they'd finished their jobs.
This has nothing to do with the grant of authority by Congress.
This illegal invasion is all Bush's doing.
And Congress endorsed this "illegal invasion":
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.
The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.
Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.
Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.
The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.
. . .
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
-
And Congress endorsed this "illegal invasion":
Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
...
FACT BOX
• "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 Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.
• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.
...
You are missing the point. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force to disarm Iraq if necessary.
Iraq was complying with the inspections and Bush ordered the use of force anyways in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441.
Was use of force necessary? No. Iraq was complying.
How does Bush's misuse of Congressional Authority implicate Congress? It doesn't. Bush used force in contravention of res. 1441 and in spite of the fact of Iraq's compliance.
Take another look: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,"
Did Iraq attack the US or an ally? No.
and "(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
Did Bush enforce UN resolutions? No. He broke UN resolutions by ordering the attack.
-
...You or anyone else on this board are no better than I, we just have different sources for info!
This certainly sounds like you are a relativist to me.
-
Remember he was a UNInspector, there not exactly known for doing their jobs!
Are you just repeating this?
Or can you cite several examples of the UN inspectors NOT doing their jobs in the past?
-
Also of note,
President Bush is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.
As such, his order of attack was his decision to make and not Congress'.
That's why Bush is solely repsonsible.
-
I'm so amused by the thinking of the 29% of america that still stands behind bush.
-
I'm so amused by the thinking of the 29% of america that still stands behind bush.
NO, actually Bush stands behind them and they are all comfortably bent over.
-
You are missing the point. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force to disarm Iraq if necessary.
Iraq was complying with the inspections and Bush ordered the use of force anyways in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441.
Was use of force necessary? No. Iraq was complying.
How does Bush's misuse of Congressional Authority implicate Congress? It doesn't. Bush used force in contravention of res. 1441 and in spite of the fact of Iraq's compliance.
Take another look: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,"
Did Iraq attack the US or an ally? No.
and "(2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq"
Did Bush enforce UN resolutions? No. He broke UN resolutions by ordering the attack.
Actually I think you're missing the point. Democrats represented to the American people, unequivocally, that Saddam was a threat before and after the invasion. Democrats endorsed the war after it started. There has been no declaration from the UN or Congress that the war was illegal. They all believed Saddam was a threat. So to say Bush lied to start the war is to say Congress and the UN lied as well. It really makes no sense to me. They all believed, and represented, that Saddam was threat.
Congress gave Bush the discretion to determine whether war was necessary:
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.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
Disagreeing with the decision to go to war is one thing, but saying the war is "illegal" and that Bush "lied" has no factual support, when you look at all of the facts.
-
Actually I think you're missing the point. Democrats represented to the American people, unequivocally, that Saddam was a threat before and after the invasion. Democrats endorsed the war after it started. There has been no declaration from the UN or Congress that the war was illegal. They all believed Saddam was a threat. So to say Bush lied to start the war is to say Congress and the UN lied as well. It really makes no sense to me. They all believed, and represented, that Saddam was threat.
Which one of the Democrats is the President and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces?
None.
As I said before, who cares what the democrats thought anyways?
What the democrats thought is irrelevant to what the actual WMD Inspectors were finding on the ground in Iraq. The Inspectors were the best indicators of whether Iraq had WMDs or not.
It is obvious that Bush lied about the war—conflating 9/11 and Hussein repeatedly in speeches until about 70% of the American public made that connection.
To deny that he lied is folly.
Proving that he lied is another matter.
Congress gave Bush the discretion to determine whether war was necessary:
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.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
Disagreeing with the decision to go to war is one thing, but saying the war is "illegal" and that Bush "lied" has no factual support, when you look at all of the facts.
You have provided no facts to support your case. If there are facts to exculpate Bush please list them.
The Congressional grant of authority is just that and only that. That authority is exercised in web of treaties (part of the US Constitution) and international judicial holdings.
If George Bush had carte blanche (your point) to do as he pleased simply b/c Congress authorized the use of force, why did he run to the UN to enforce existing resolutions?
Because he wanted the veneer of legality for his use of force, otherwise he would be swinging from the neck guilty of war crimes.
Bush was compelled to go to the UN to ask for permission to use force b/c Iraq did not attack us, did not attack an ally, and was not engaging in genocidal behavior.
As I have shown before, Bush did not enforce any UN resolution but he sure as shit violated res. 1441.
Here it is summarized:
1. Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to invade Iraq
2. Congress authorized him to use force to disarm Iraq’s WMDs
3. Shortly thereafter, Hussein let WMD inspectors into Iraq
4. They were finding nothing
5. Bush ordered the attack to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Iraq even though no weapons were found.
6. Res. 1441 does not authorize any single UN member country to unilaterally make such an order—Only the Security Council can authorize use of force for enforcing a UN Resolution
7. Bush, cmdr. And chief, broke the law by ordering an invasion before WMDs were found and before the Security Council could authorize a use of force.
-
Which one of the Democrats is the President and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces?
None.
As I said before, who cares what the democrats thought anyways?
What the democrats thought is irrelevant to what the actual WMD Inspectors were finding on the ground in Iraq. The Inspectors were the best indicators of whether Iraq had WMDs or not.
It is obvious that Bush lied about the war—conflating 9/11 and Hussein repeatedly in speeches until about 70% of the American public made that connection.
To deny that he lied is folly.
Proving that he lied is another matter.
You have provided no facts to support your case. If there are facts to exculpate Bush please list them.
The Congressional grant of authority is just that and only that. That authority is exercised in web of treaties (part of the US Constitution) and international judicial holdings.
If George Bush had carte blanche (your point) to do as he pleased simply b/c Congress authorized the use of force, why did he run to the UN to enforce existing resolutions?
Because he wanted the veneer of legality for his use of force, otherwise he would be swinging from the neck guilty of war crimes.
Bush was compelled to go to the UN to ask for permission to use force b/c Iraq did not attack us, did not attack an ally, and was not engaging in genocidal behavior.
As I have shown before, Bush did not enforce any UN resolution but he sure as shit violated res. 1441.
Here it is summarized:
1. Bush, for whatever reason, wanted to invade Iraq
2. Congress authorized him to use force to disarm Iraq’s WMDs
3. Shortly thereafter, Hussein let WMD inspectors into Iraq
4. They were finding nothing
5. Bush ordered the attack to enforce UN resolutions to disarm Iraq even though no weapons were found.
6. Res. 1441 does not authorize any single UN member country to unilaterally make such an order—Only the Security Council can authorize use of force for enforcing a UN Resolution
7. Bush, cmdr. And chief, broke the law by ordering an invasion before WMDs were found and before the Security Council could authorize a use of force.
Here is what's missing from your outline:
1998: President Clinton: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
1998: President Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
1998: Sany Berger: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
1998: Senators Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
1998: Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
1999: Albright: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
2001: Sen. Graham (D) and others to President Bush: "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
2002: Sen. Levin (D): "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
2002: Gore: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
2002: Sen. Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
2002: Sen. Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
2002: Sen. Kerry: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
2003: Sen. Kerry: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
I omitted some, including representations from President Hillary.
So here you have Democrats telling the American people and two presidents from 1998 through 2003 that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed. President Bush took action and disarmed Saddam and now he lied? You cannot ignore these unequivocal representations when claiming that Bush "lied" about Saddam being a threat.
And if the war is illegal, why did Congress pass resolutions endorsing the war after it started? And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.?
-
And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.?
The UN would never condemn any of the Security Council permanent members, who all have a veto.
-Hedge
-
Here is what's missing from your outline:
1998: President Clinton: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
1998: President Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
1998: Sany Berger: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
1998: Senators Levin, Daschle, Kerry, and others: "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
1998: Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
1999: Albright: "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
2001: Sen. Graham (D) and others to President Bush: "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
2002: Sen. Levin (D): "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
2002: Gore: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
2002: Sen. Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
2002: Sen. Byrd: "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
2002: Sen. Kerry: "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
2003: Sen. Kerry: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
I omitted some, including representations from President Hillary.
So here you have Democrats telling the American people and two presidents from 1998 through 2003 that Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed. President Bush took action and disarmed Saddam and now he lied? You cannot ignore these unequivocal representations when claiming that Bush "lied" about Saddam being a threat.
And if the war is illegal, why did Congress pass resolutions endorsing the war after it started? And why hasn't the UN passed a resolution condemning the U.S.?
Those are all beautiful quotes about belief but entirely irrelevant to what the WMD inspectors were finding on the ground in carrying out the disarmament policy of resolution 1441.
Whether the invasion is legal b/c Bush lied about Hussein's WMDs is also irrelevant.
I merely point out that the president did lie. Lying is immaterial to the President's illegal use of force against Iraq.
It doesn't matter, (irrelevant) whether the Congress or the UN condemn Bush's illegal invasion. That does not change the fact that under the current laws & treaties, Bush's use of force was criminal.
UN Sec. General Annan called the invasion illegal in 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Do you really believe that a republican rubberstamp Congress would call a spade a spade?
The ABA and vast majority of legal scholars called the invasion illegal. http://legal.lege.net/the-rule-of-law/#04
http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/arms.html
Richard Perle admitted the invasion is illegal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
The only constitutional remedy for this sort of illegality in the US is impeachment.
The censure you call for is extra-constitutional.
That's the reason censure failed in the Clinton fiasco--censure is not authorized by the Constitution.
-
Those are all beautiful quotes about belief but entirely irrelevant to what the WMD inspectors were finding on the ground in carrying out the disarmament policy of resolution 1441.
Whether the invasion is legal b/c Bush lied about Hussein's WMDs is also irrelevant.
I merely point out that the president did lie. Lying is immaterial to the President's illegal use of force against Iraq.
It doesn't matter, (irrelevant) whether the Congress or the UN condemn Bush's illegal invasion. That does not change the fact that under the current laws & treaties, Bush's use of force was criminal.
UN Sec. General Annan called the invasion illegal in 2004. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Do you really believe that a republican rubberstamp Congress would call a spade a spade?
The ABA and vast majority of legal scholars called the invasion illegal. http://legal.lege.net/the-rule-of-law/#04
http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/leadership/policy/arms.html
Richard Perle admitted the invasion is illegal. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
The only constitutional remedy for this sort of illegality in the US is impeachment.
The censure you call for is extra-constitutional.
That's the reason censure failed in the Clinton fiasco--censure is not authorized by the Constitution.
Let me see if I'm following you:
1. Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat.
2. The fact Republicans and Democrats in Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started has no relevance to whether Congress can now say the war was illegal.
3. A bunch of academic yahoos, Annan et al. said the war is illegal, but neither the UN nor Congress has done squat about it.
-
The UN would never condemn any of the Security Council permanent members, who all have a veto.
-Hedge
I think they'd be reluctant to do so, but if one of the members illegally invades another, I'm sure they'd do something.
-
Let me see if I'm following you:
1. Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat.
2. The fact Republicans and Democrats in Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started has no relevance to whether Congress can now say the war was illegal.
3. A bunch of academic yahoos, Annan et al. said the war is illegal, but neither the UN nor Congress has done squat about it.
Yeah, what do lawyers know about the law?--It's that type of dogmatic nonsense that doesn't serve you well Beach Bum.
As for Congress endorsing the war before and after...that's irrelevant to whether the president's ordered attack was legal or not.
Beach Bum, please look at these questions and answer the final one.
Why was use of force by the US necessary?
B/c Hussein/Iraq represented a threat to us b/c he/it possessed WMDs.
How do we know?
We don't.
How do we verify if Iraq had WMDs?
WMD Inspectors must inspect Iraq under UN Res. 1441.
Results: No WMDs as the inspections wore on.
Yet Bush attacked.
If the inspectors were doing their jobs under res. 1441 and finding no WMDs, why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?
-
I think they'd be reluctant to do so, but if one of the members illegally invades another, I'm sure they'd do something.
Think about the Israel/Palestine situation.
Why hasn't there been any intervention there?
The reason is that USA, and sometimes another member of the security country, will veto it.
Why are there problems with getting resolutions through against North Korea?
Because China wants to deal with its own backyard, and vetoes any such major resolution.
Why was it easy to get a UN op going in Yugoslavia?
Because the global political situation wasn't as uptight, and none of the permanent Security council members had any objections to it.
-Hedge
-
Yeah, what do lawyers know about the law?--It's that type of dogmatic nonsense that doesn't serve you well Beach Bum.
As for Congress endorsing the war before and after...that's irrelevant to whether the president's ordered attack was legal or not.
Beach Bum, please look at these questions and answer the final one.
Why was use of force by the US necessary?
B/c Hussein/Iraq represented a threat to us b/c he/it possessed WMDs.
How do we know?
We don't.
How do we verify if Iraq had WMDs?
WMD Inspectors must inspect Iraq under UN Res. 1441.
Results: No WMDs as the inspections wore on.
Yet Bush attacked.
If the inspectors were doing their jobs under res. 1441 and finding no WMDs, why did Bush order the invasion of Iraq?
Decker I am not impressed by academics giving opinions about the war, unless the sentiment is unanimous. Is it?
Why was force necessary and why did Bush order the invasion? Ask Senator Kerry, who summarized the sentiment of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and probably much of the world (through the UN):
2003: Sen. Kerry: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
And I'm sorry, but the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started is highly relevant to whether or not Congress now believes the war was illegal. I'll eat my Lakers and Niners hats if that ever happens. I think it fails legally and doesn't pass the common sense test.
-
Decker I am not impressed by academics giving opinions about the war, unless the sentiment is unanimous. Is it?
Why was force necessary and why did Bush order the invasion? Ask Senator Kerry, who summarized the sentiment of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and probably much of the world (through the UN):
2003: Sen. Kerry: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
And I'm sorry, but the fact Congress endorsed the war after it started is highly relevant to whether or not Congress now believes the war was illegal. I'll eat my Lakers and Niners hats if that ever happens. I think it fails legally and doesn't pass the common sense test.
It is damn near unanimous.
In fact if you can supply a credible legal scholar who claims that Bush did not break the law with his invasion, I'd like to see that opinion.
Was Senator Kerry a WMD inspector on the ground in Iraq doing inspections?
My evidence is better than your evidence.
I can't read the mind of Congress as to the legality of Bush's invasion.
But I sure can read res. 1441 and its predecessors and conclude that the President broke the law.
-
Gotta go guys.
Have a great weekend.
I'll see you on Monday.
-
1. Even though everyone and their mother said Saddam was a threat, both before and after Bush took office, right up through the invasion, Bush nevertheless lied about Saddam being a threat.
Does that "everyone" include the UN inspectors?
-
Think about the Israel/Palestine situation.
Why hasn't there been any intervention there?
The reason is that USA, and sometimes another member of the security country, will veto it.
Why are there problems with getting resolutions through against North Korea?
Because China wants to deal with its own backyard, and vetoes any such major resolution.
Why was it easy to get a UN op going in Yugoslavia?
Because the global political situation wasn't as uptight, and none of the permanent Security council members had any objections to it.
-Hedge
Good points. Still, if one sovereign country clearly illegally invades another, I doubt the UN would do nothing. The UN Security Council has had disagreements in the past over certain conduct by different countries.
-
It is damn near unanimous.
In fact if you can supply a credible legal scholar who claims that Bush did not break the law with his invasion, I'd like to see that opinion.
Was Senator Kerry a WMD inspector on the ground in Iraq doing inspections?
My evidence is better than your evidence.
I can't read the mind of Congress as to the legality of Bush's invasion.
But I sure can read res. 1441 and its predecessors and conclude that the President broke the law.
Define "credible legal scholar." :)
Senator Kerry probably had better and more complete information than those "credible legal scholars."
What evidence? Dude we are both arm chair QBs. :)
I can read what Congress had to say about the war. Sounds crystal clear to me. They obviously didn't think the prez broke the law if they endorsed his conduct.
-
Does that "everyone" include the UN inspectors?
Ask Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd: (2002 comments):
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-
Wrong again.
You post your nameless inspector and I'll post All the the BLix reports which concluded that NO WMDS were being found. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/chronology.asp http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp
You will find links to Blix's reports about WMDs in Iraq...I mean the absence of WMDs in Iraq.
Who was right about the WMDs in Iraq again?
Oh that's right, (all together now) "Hans Blix was right and Pres. Bush (and you) were wrong."
Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq: “The World is Better Off"
October 7, 2004- The chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the resources and intension to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The following are excerpts from his testimony:
Summary
“What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001 , things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended--- and sanctions were eroding.”
On whether the world is safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars…
“In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil.”
“ Analytically, the world is better off.”
On Saddam's strategy to erode sanctions…
“The steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food [OFF] program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001 was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions. Moreover, illicit revenues grew to quite substantial levels during the same period and it is instructive to see how and where the Regime allocated these funds.”
“ISG's investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions. The Regime, following a pattern that Saddam has applied throughout his career, offered rewards and a rationale for accepting them, successfully arguing its case that the sanctions were harming the innocent, and that the moral choice was to elude and diminish them. It is grossly obvious how successful the Regime was. It is also grossly obvious how the sanctions perverted not just the national system of finance and economics, but to some extent the international markets and organizations.”
“The Procurement and Finance section notes that a sizeable portion of the illicit revenues generated under the Oil for Food program went to the Military Industrial Commission (the government-run military-industrial establishment). The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past WMD programs went from approximately $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001. During this period of growing resource availability, many military programs were carried out—including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council .”
On Saddam's experience at concealing his WMD activities…
“From the experience of dealing with UN inspectors the Iraqis learned a great deal about what signatures we looked for. Iraqis generally knew a lot more about us than we did about them. For various reasons, their ability and desire to conceal their intentions and capabilities were quite good.”
On Saddam's belief in the necessity of WMD…
“Saddam committed the brightest minds and much national treasure to developing WMD. Moreover, Saddam saw this investment as having paid vital dividends. Senior Iraqis state that only through the use of long-range ballistic missiles and the extensive use of chemical weapons did Iraq avoid defeat in the war with Iran . There is also a second, less obvious instance where the regime attributes its survival to possession of WMD.”
“In the run-up to the 1991 war, Iraq loaded, dispersed and pre-delegated the authority to use both biological and chemical weapons if the coalition proceeded to Baghdad . The Regime believes its possession of WMD deterred the US from going to Baghdad in 1991. Moreover, it has been clear in my discussions with senior Iraqis that they clearly understand that they blundered in invading Kuwait before completing their nuclear weapons program. Had they waited, the outcome would have been quite different . Finally, Saddam also used chemical weapons for domestic purposes—in the late Eighties against the Kurds and during the Shi'a uprisings after the 1991 war.”
On Saddam's efforts to develop missile delivery systems…
“A couple of points are of interest from the Iraq missile efforts. One is that they did not bide by the range limits set in UN Security Council Resolution 687. The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits. Iraq also used components from SA-2 engines that they had expressly been prohibited. Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared. They also tested UAVs in excess of the range limits .”
“ Iraq missile developers became so confident that others would violate the sanctions that they designed new missile systems which depended upon the import of guidance systems. Further, they drew upon the foreign expertise that was readily available for such areas as propulsion.”
“ Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf war. Saddam drew a distinction between long range missiles and WMD—a distinction not drawn in the UN resolutions. Iraq 's missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels, and even guidance systems. As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, Saddam directed more missile activities. In the later years, more foreign assistance was brought in—including both technology and technical expertise. While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point…so long as sanctions remained. However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done very quickly. The CW and BW warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.”
On Saddam's nuclear ambitions…
“There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas.”
“Despite this decay [in his nuclear program], Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them. He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, clearly implying matching Tehran's nuclear capabilities. Saddam observed that India and Pakistan had slipped across the nuclear weapons boundary quite successfully. Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field .”
On Saddam's chemical weapons aspirations…
“As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.”
“Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity .”
“By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two .”
http://www.house.gov/garymiller/WeaponsInspector.html
-
Big Lie Democrats???????
This is a great subject to talk about democrats because Clinton was caught lying about his NASTY sex life with Ms.Lewinsky.
Democrats like Carville used deceit to describe how good the Clinton years were supposed to be.
-
People cut and paste all the time to start debates and it's mostly the liberal posters with their spin........like a true liberal Oz, you have a double standard, but I guess when a liberal or dem posts a cut and paste it's ok?
Look through my posts, there's alot more of my opinion on here than there is "cut and "paste"
Mr I, how about you Repugs send "scratch and sniffs," rather than "cut and posts"? ;D
-
Mr I, how about you Repugs send "scratch and sniffs," rather than "cut and posts"? ;D
8)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/normal_reef11.jpg)
-
Big Lie Democrats???????
This is a great subject to talk about democrats because Clinton was caught lying about his NASTY sex life with Ms.Lewinsky.
Democrats like Carville used deceit to describe how good the Clinton years were supposed to be.
better than republicans that get head from little boys at church
-
Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq: “The World is Better Off"
October 7, 2004- The chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the resources and intension to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The following are excerpts from his testimony:
Summary
“What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of the use of force and had experience that demonstrated the utility of WMD. He was making progress in eroding sanctions and, had it not been for the events of 9-11-2001 , things would have taken a different course for the Regime. Most senior members of the Regime and scientists assumed that the programs would begin in earnest when sanctions ended--- and sanctions were eroding.”
On whether the world is safer with Saddam Hussein behind bars…
“In my opinion there was a risk of Saddam Hussein in charge of a country with that amount of resources and that amount of potential for both good and evil.”
“ Analytically, the world is better off.”
On Saddam's strategy to erode sanctions…
“The steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food [OFF] program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001 was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions. Moreover, illicit revenues grew to quite substantial levels during the same period and it is instructive to see how and where the Regime allocated these funds.”
“ISG's investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions. The Regime, following a pattern that Saddam has applied throughout his career, offered rewards and a rationale for accepting them, successfully arguing its case that the sanctions were harming the innocent, and that the moral choice was to elude and diminish them. It is grossly obvious how successful the Regime was. It is also grossly obvious how the sanctions perverted not just the national system of finance and economics, but to some extent the international markets and organizations.”
“The Procurement and Finance section notes that a sizeable portion of the illicit revenues generated under the Oil for Food program went to the Military Industrial Commission (the government-run military-industrial establishment). The funding for this organization, which had responsibility for many of the past WMD programs went from approximately $7.8 million in 1998 to $350 million in 2001. During this period of growing resource availability, many military programs were carried out—including many involving the willing export to Iraq of military items prohibited by the Security Council .”
On Saddam's experience at concealing his WMD activities…
“From the experience of dealing with UN inspectors the Iraqis learned a great deal about what signatures we looked for. Iraqis generally knew a lot more about us than we did about them. For various reasons, their ability and desire to conceal their intentions and capabilities were quite good.”
On Saddam's belief in the necessity of WMD…
“Saddam committed the brightest minds and much national treasure to developing WMD. Moreover, Saddam saw this investment as having paid vital dividends. Senior Iraqis state that only through the use of long-range ballistic missiles and the extensive use of chemical weapons did Iraq avoid defeat in the war with Iran . There is also a second, less obvious instance where the regime attributes its survival to possession of WMD.”
“In the run-up to the 1991 war, Iraq loaded, dispersed and pre-delegated the authority to use both biological and chemical weapons if the coalition proceeded to Baghdad . The Regime believes its possession of WMD deterred the US from going to Baghdad in 1991. Moreover, it has been clear in my discussions with senior Iraqis that they clearly understand that they blundered in invading Kuwait before completing their nuclear weapons program. Had they waited, the outcome would have been quite different . Finally, Saddam also used chemical weapons for domestic purposes—in the late Eighties against the Kurds and during the Shi'a uprisings after the 1991 war.”
On Saddam's efforts to develop missile delivery systems…
“A couple of points are of interest from the Iraq missile efforts. One is that they did not bide by the range limits set in UN Security Council Resolution 687. The range capabilities of the ballistic missiles they were developing exceeded the stated limits. Iraq also used components from SA-2 engines that they had expressly been prohibited. Iraq also produced fuel that was not declared. They also tested UAVs in excess of the range limits .”
“ Iraq missile developers became so confident that others would violate the sanctions that they designed new missile systems which depended upon the import of guidance systems. Further, they drew upon the foreign expertise that was readily available for such areas as propulsion.”
“ Iraq continued to work on missile delivery systems in the wake of the Gulf war. Saddam drew a distinction between long range missiles and WMD—a distinction not drawn in the UN resolutions. Iraq 's missile development infrastructure continued to develop under sanctions, and included work on propulsion, fuels, and even guidance systems. As more funding became available following the implementation of the OFF program, Saddam directed more missile activities. In the later years, more foreign assistance was brought in—including both technology and technical expertise. While it is clear that Saddam wanted a long range missile, there was little work done on warheads. It is apparent that he drew the line at that point…so long as sanctions remained. However, while the development of ballistic missile delivery systems is time consuming, if and when Saddam decided to place a non-conventional warhead on the missile, this could be done very quickly. The CW and BW warheads put on Iraqi missiles in 1990 and 1991, for example, were built in months.”
On Saddam's nuclear ambitions…
“There were also efforts to retain the intellectual capital of nuclear scientists by forbidding their departure from Iraq and keeping them employed in government areas.”
“Despite this decay [in his nuclear program], Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. He made clear his view that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them. He was very attentive to the growing Iranian threat—especially its potential nuclear component, and stated that he would do whatever it took to offset the Iranian threat, clearly implying matching Tehran's nuclear capabilities. Saddam observed that India and Pakistan had slipped across the nuclear weapons boundary quite successfully. Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field .”
On Saddam's chemical weapons aspirations…
“As in the other WMD areas, Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future.”
“Over time, and with the infusion of funding and resources following acceptance of the Oil for Food program, Iraq effectively shortened the time that would be required to reestablish CW production capacity .”
“By 2003, Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agent in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two .”
http://www.house.gov/garymiller/WeaponsInspector.html
Straw Man argument followed by red herring arguments.
What exactly are you trying to prove? You've shown me nothing but dated irrelevant quotations.
Who cares if anyone thinks the 'world is better off' w/out Hussein in power? That's irrelevant to whether Bush broke the law in ordering the invasion.
As a matter of course, I think it is fairly obvious that the world was in better shape with Hussein in power. The illegal invasion destabilzed the middle east, caused worldwide terrorist acts to increase 400%, cost the US billions in dollars, killed tens of thousands, and created a breeding ground for more terrorists.
What was that about the world being better off w/out Hussein in power?
-
Define "credible legal scholar." :)
Senator Kerry probably had better and more complete information than those "credible legal scholars."
What evidence? Dude we are both arm chair QBs. :)
I can read what Congress had to say about the war. Sounds crystal clear to me. They obviously didn't think the prez broke the law if they endorsed his conduct.
Credible = any expert with experience in foreign affairs and/or a degree in international law/relations from an accredited university.
What Kerry thought or what Congress thought is irrelevant to whether the president broke the law by ordering the invasion contrary to the requirements of UN Res. 1441. Here's the resolution.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Does the U.S. have the right to invade Iraq?
No. The UN resolution passed in November 2002 sent arms inspectors back into Iraq to verify Iraq's disarmament, the final requirement before lifting sanctions. The resolution says there will be "serious consequences" if there is a "material breach" of the resolution, but it specifically does not identify what those consequences should or might be. The resolution states that a finding of "material breach" requires both omissions or lies in Iraq's arms declaration and non-compliance with inspectors. It reserves for the Council as a whole, not any individual country, authority to make those determinations.
When the resolution was passed, every Council ambassador other than Washington's made clear the resolution provides no authorization for war. According to Mexico's Ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, force could only be valid, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council." The U.S. may decide to go to war without the Security Council's OK, and regardless of what the UN inspectors find or don't find. But the terms of the UN resolutions are very important considerations for Security Council countries such as France, Mexico, Germany and others, whose governments must balance their desire to join Bush's war with widespread public anti-war sentiment.
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer2.htm
I will ask again, if Iraq was complying w/ inspections and Bush was seeking to use force in accordance with Res. 1441, is it legal for Bush (and Bush alone) to order the invasion?
If anyone can answer that question adequately, I will change my allegation that Bush is a criminal.
-
When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9035
I'll assume this is the Bill Clinton.......you voted for TWICE? :o :o :o :o
Just another Scratch and Sniff.....errr Copy and Post by Mr Lib himself!!
-
And before anyone thinks that the UN is irrelevant to whether the US could attack Iraq consider this too:
Without UN authority, and since there is no legitimate claim of self-defense, any U.S. strike on Iraq would violate international law. It would constitute the crime of aggression, one of the most serious war crimes. Anyone with command responsibility for such an illegal war could be held accountable in a U.S. or international court.
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer2.htm
-
8)
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/normal_reef11.jpg)
I'll admit Mr Lib, that was your most informative post ever. ;D