Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[NotfooledbyW]

. Iraq was trying desperately to avail itself of its opportunity under Resolution 1441

That is a fact. And that fact is backed up by Saddam's December 2002 offer to Bush and Blair that they could send thousand of WMD experts and intelligence agents into Iraq to find the whereabouts of the WMD that was allegedly there.

Saddam had never made that kind of offer before then.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You have to wonder why liberals are not pissed as hell that Obama did not conduct an investigation with an independent council and why Bush was never brought up on war crimes by the UN and the international community if it was so obvious he deliberately lied.

Why should Obama conduct an investigation when it is plain as day that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 when he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors. Its an obvious lie that such intelligence existed because Bush was supposed to give that kind of 'irrefutable' intelligence to the UN inspectors so that they could verify it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.

Most members of the UNSC disagree with your reading. And the UN authorization for war request by the US and UK was dropped because it would not have passed.

According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[11][12][13]

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TooTall]

I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.

Most members of the UNSC disagree with your reading. And the UN authorization for war request by the US and UK was dropped because it would not have passed.

According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[11][12][13]

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really need to change your name to "Completely fooled by Obama."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You really need to change your name to "Completely fooled by Obama."

This has nothing to do with Obama. I see you bring that up for being unable to defend your argument or refute mine.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Just in:

“I think I would have (voted the same way), but I think I would have challenged the evidence with greater scrutiny,” McCain explained, as quoted by CNN. “I think that with my background with the military and knowledge of national security with these issues that I hope that I would have been able to see through the evidence that was presented at the time.”

McCain: I'd Have Been 'Reluctant' To Start Iraq War If I Won In 2000

Most interested minds knew the intelligence that Bush went public with was flimsy by early March 2003 and that Bush was lying when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors.

Why did it take so long for McCain to figure this out.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did President Clinton know precisely where Saddam had WMD when he launched several days of heavy bombing of Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998?

Clinton did not claim to have intelligence that left 'no doubt' that Iraq was hiding WMD from inspectors in Iraq. Bush made that claim in 2003. Clinton bombed Iraq because inspectors closed up shop as they claimed Saddam Hussein was obstructing their work. The inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by SH in 1998. They were kicked out by Bush in 2003.

 

[U2Edge]

Here is what Bill Clinton said about SADDAM and WMD in December 1998. He mentions towards the end that the best way to handle Saddam is to replace him with a new Iraqi government.

 

[U2Edge]

Just in:

“I think I would have (voted the same way), but I think I would have challenged the evidence with greater scrutiny,” McCain explained, as quoted by CNN. “I think that with my background with the military and knowledge of national security with these issues that I hope that I would have been able to see through the evidence that was presented at the time.”

McCain: I'd Have Been 'Reluctant' To Start Iraq War If I Won In 2000

Most interested minds knew the intelligence that Bush went public with was flimsy by early March 2003 and that Bush was lying when he said he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors.

Why did it take so long for McCain to figure this out.

The fact is, McCain still supports the removal of Saddam and he should. The fact that Iraq appears to not of had active WMD capability at the time of the March 2003 ground invasion is a blessing and shows that the invasion was launched at the perfect time. Only a fool would wait to invade and remove Saddam until he had the capacity to inflict mass casualties and loss of life on coalition forces and civilians in the region.

 

[U2Edge]

Did the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide sufficient legal basis for military action against Iraq? - US - Iraq War - Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

I will take Kofi Annan's opinion on the matter. From your link:

"[Owen Bennett-Jones] (Q): Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

Kofi Annan (A): Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.

Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?

A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, if you wish.

Q: It was illegal?

A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."

Sep. 16, 2004 - Kofi Annan, MS

Kofi's opinion is irrelevant. The United States and other member states were given the authorization to act in resolution 678 (passed in late 1990) which is applied to ALL subsequent resolutions with regards to Iraq's invasion and destruction of Kuwait and its WMD materials and development. THE UNITED STATES USED MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ EVERY YEAR FROM 1991 THROUGH 2003 UNDER THE RESOLUTION 678 AUTHORIZATION WHICH WAS REAFFIRMED IN 1441!

 

[U2Edge]

Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?

Resolutions do not invoke Chapter rules, they are passed under Chapter Rules. For example the many resolutions passed against Israel by the UN over the past few decades were passed under Chapter VI rules which do not allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement. Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions.

Really. Fucktard?


The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12


.

Ok, name one resolution, just one, that was NOT passed under Chapter VII rules with respect to Saddam's Iraq and his invasion of Kuwait and the requirments placed on him after that invasion. There were 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed against Iraq up to 2003. All of them were passed under Chapter VII rules which allows for the enforcement to come through the use of military force.

If they had been passed under Chapter VI rules of the United Nations, enforcement through the use of military force would not even be an option. For example all resolutions that have been passed against Israel have been passed under Chapter VI rules of the United Nations in which enforcement through military force is never an option.


As for the diplomats comments, THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN USING MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ EVERY YEAR SINCE 1991 UNDER THE APPROVAL PROVIDED BY RESOLUTION 678 PASSED IN LATE 1990! YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TRIGGERS OR NEED ANY TRIGGERS FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE WHICH HAS ALREADY BE AUTHORIZED AND IS ACTIVELY BEING USED AND HAS BEEN ACTIVELY USED EVERY YEAR FOR THE PREVIOUS 12 YEARS!

 

[U2Edge]

IT SERVES NO LEGAL PURPOSE THOUGH BECAUSE THE USE OF FORCE WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED LONG AGO! Its about politics and recruiting support, NOT international law.

Do you have any legal basis in making your claim? Are you saying that the fifteen members of the UNSC including three permanent members, Russia, China and France voted for it not to grant Iraq a final opportunity to comply without war in accordance with international law? Do you actually believe that those three nations, France Russia and China voted for 1441 for politics and recruiting support for the US and UK to invade Iraq on their own.

They voted for it because that did not want to appear to be soft on Saddam in lighter of China's, Russia's and France's GROSS violations of UN sanctions and UN Weapons Embargo against Saddam over the previous four years.

The United States drafted the resolution to remain consistent with the previous resolutions drafted which all gave authorization to the United States to use military force against Iraq for ANY non-compliance by Iraq. The United States had been using military force against Iraq EVERY year since 1991 under the authorization and the approval provided by resolution 678 passed in late 1990 which is reaffirmed in the body of 1441.

The UNITED STATES WOULD NEVER DRAFT A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD HAVE RESCINDED AN AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE WHICH IT ALREADY HAD AND HAD BEEN USING EVERY YEAR FOR THE PREVIOUS 12 YEARS!

 

[U2Edge]

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its the US position that is stated here:

" under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately"

Why would the US need the entire UNSC to convene to authorize war if 1441 automatically authorized war (when it was written) by any member state that decides it wants to launch one?

Like Negroponte said, Bush reneged on 1441 to invade Iraq. Why did he say that?

It did not say "convene to authorize war". The UN Security Council did not need to convene to authorize something that was already authorized back in November 1990 under resolution 678. The United States already had authorization from resolution 678 and had been carrying out the use of military force against Iraq every single YEAR since 1991 under that Authorization!

 

[U2Edge]

The lie denier Bush defenders now sound like defense attorneys claiming a dismissal of charges is necessary due to a technicality. Either that or Bush made an understandable mistake and should be forgiven. Bush's legacy will forever be the President who refused to take responsibility for the things he was responsible for.

Sorry, but he took responsibility and went before the entire country in November 2004 to either be sent packing or given another four years based on his actions in the previous four. Americans voted for George Bush by the first majority scene in a President election in the popular vote at that time since 1988.

 

[U2Edge]

My point is that Bush had numerous valid reasons to invade Iraq based on intelligence from the CIA and other allied intelligence agencies.

What valid reasons are those? I understand Bush had many reasons, but my interest is in what you presume to believe the 'valid' reasons.

I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.

Reading 1441 does not resolve the problems with your argument. The language in 1441 does not authorize the use of force after 1441 was passed. There is no autonacity or trigger to use force. Only the permanent and acting ten members on the UNSC had the authority to authorize military force or other consequences if Iraq failed to take its final opportunity to comply.

Iraq was not cited for any hard core violations that were egregious enough the the UNSC was required to convene to decide the matter of consequences.

Your reading of 1441 is in error.


Bush did not need UN authorization because what he actually did was renege on his committment to peaceful disarming of Iraq through 1441 in order to go down the path of preemptive self defense.

That is not legal under the UN Chartet by any means. Only Bush supporters go along with that case for starting a war.

Read a little on it here:

After months of trying to roally international support for a war and a two-day ultimatum demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein step down, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

Self Defense
Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack.

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues

RESOLUTION 678 IS IN THE BODY OF 1441 AND IS REAFFIRMED IN 1441. RESOLUITON 678 HAD NOT BEEN RESCINDED IN ANY WAY BY THAT RESOLUTION OR ANY OTHER AND CONTINUED TO BE THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE UNITED STATES USE OF MILITARY FORCE WHICH OCCURED EVERY SINGLE YEAR AGAINST IRAQ FROM 1991 THROUGH 2003! THE UNITED STATES WAS ALREADY USING MIILTARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ AND HAD BEEN EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 1991!



As for the valid reasons of needing to remove Saddam, just look at the history of Saddam from 1979 through 2003. His actions led to the deaths of 1.7 million people, he invaded and attacked unprovoked four different countries, he launched ballistic missiles against his neighbors, he used WMD more times than any other leader in history since World War I. He killed thousands of civilians and soldiers with his use of WMD. He caused one of the worst environmental disasters in global history with his burning of Kuwaiti oil wells and the dumping of Kuwaiti oil into the Persian Gulf, he invaded and annexed Kuwait, the first leader in world history to annex another country since Adolf Hitler did it.

Finally the urge to decisively act in 2003 was also motivated by the collapse of sanctions and the weapons embargo placed on Saddam. With those in ruin, Saddam could more rapidly rebuild his past military capabilities making any use of force against Saddam in the future far more costly. The United States and the international community had a responsibility to PREVENT Saddam from ever rebuilding any of his prior capabilities and that is what the United States and the international community succeeded in doing in 2003.

 

[U2Edge]

1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There was no need to restate the obvious conditions of Saddam Hussein's violations. 12[/B]

Yet, that is exactly what is done when you read 1441!

No one disputed that Saddam was in violation and that a U.S. President could 'enforce' UN Security Council Resolutions if non-compliance with those resolutions posed a genuine threat or a humanitarian crisis that justified military action.

The United States had been using military force against Iraq every year since 1991 under the authorization provided by resolution 678. That authorization was still there in 2002 and was still there in March 2003 when the ground invasion was launched. The United States was heavily bombing many sites all over Iraq in the summer and fall of 2002!

Not making sense is one thing. But the second part of your statement is just plain wrong. 1441 did not authorize the international community to use military force as you claim.

YES, it did as it reaffirmed the FACT that the United States already had the authorization to use military force and had been using military force against Iraq EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 1991!

You wrote on 07-14-2014 at 02:19 PM, "Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules."

On the same day at 04:04 PM I asked you, "Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?"

You quickly replied at 04:32 PM, "Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions."

You are wrong, as Contumacious pointed out today at 06:25 PM, "The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said: “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph

No, I am not wrong that every UN Security Council Resolution passed against Iraq was passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN. All 17 UN Security Council Resolutions were passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force as an option for bringing about enforcement and compliance.

If that were not the case, then military force would NEVER have been even an option for use against Iraq under the resolutions. Chapter VII rules allow for force to be used. If any of the resolutions had been passed under Chapter VI rules like all resolutions passed against Israel, then the use of military force would never have been an option. The use of military force is not option legally in enforcing resolutions against Israel because all the resolutions against Israel were passed under Chapter VI rules of the United Nations and not Chapter VII.

There are no triggers in resolution 1441 because authorization for the use of military force was already given over a decade ago. Resolution 678 is reaffirmed in 1441 and was the authorization used by the United States for its use of military force against Iraq. The United States used military force against Iraq in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and in 2003! In all those cases, it was legal and authorized through resolution 678 which was reaffirmed in the body of 1441!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

There are no triggers in resolution 1441 because authorization for the use of military force was already given over a decade ago.

Resolution 1441 was unanimously passed, including the US, to grant Iraq a 'Final Opportunity' to comply with all previous relevant resolutions. That means that use of force was not being authorized from that time forward unless the UNSC decided that Iraq had failed to seize its final opportunity to comply and the UNSC was then to convene to determine action to be taken with regard to serious consequences for Iraq.

1441 cannot be interpreted honestly in the way you are doing it.

And you completely avoid explaining why Bush and Blair drafted a Resolution in March 2003 requesting the Council authorize the use of force if they thought it was already authorized in 1441 in the first place.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It did not say "convene to authorize war". The UN Security Council did not need to convene to authorize something that was already authorized back in November 1990 under resolution 678. The United States already had authorization from resolution 678 and had been carrying out the use of military force against Iraq every single YEAR since 1991 under that Authorization!

It says to convene to decide what action to take after convening in the event that non-compliance is reported.

" to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply "

Do you know what 'by this resolution' means 'to afford Iraq' a final opportunity to comply ?

There is no authorization for war in 1441 unless a majority votes for it.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

.11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Sorry, but he took responsibility and went before the entire country in November 2004 to either be sent packing or given another four years based on his actions in the previous four. Americans voted for George Bush by the first majority scene in a President election in the popular vote at that time since 1988.

In 2004 the myths about finding the supposedly hidden WMD in Iraq were still hanging on with a lot of fooled people. And still fools many to this day.

 

[Camp]

The lie denier Bush defenders now sound like defense attorneys claiming a dismissal of charges is necessary due to a technicality. Either that or Bush made an understandable mistake and should be forgiven. Bush's legacy will forever be the President who refused to take responsibility for the things he was responsible for.

Sorry, but he took responsibility and went before the entire country in November 2004 to either be sent packing or given another four years based on his actions in the previous four. Americans voted for George Bush by the first majority scene in a President election in the popular vote at that time since 1988.

Bush and his administration were still counting on the lies. It was to soon for the nation to determine it had been lied to. What is more important is the fact that the country has never replaced it's President during a war through an election. No sitting President has ever been defeated during war time. America has had a tradition of standing behind it's leader during wartime and has always believed it was wise not to "change horses in the middle of the stream".