Democrats Used to Say Colin Powell Lied Us Into War with Iraq, Now They Vote for Him Over Hillary

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

You're sadly mistaken - we conquered Iraq during the Bush43 administration - not in the 1990's.

When Bush pulled out investigators and decided to conquer Iraq, we knew they didn't have any WMDs worth going to war over.

And, congress had passed their resolution limiting Bush to only two specific justifications for war - NEITHER of which existed.

He should have been impeached for that.

You're sadly mistaken

About what?

we conquered Iraq during the Bush43 administration - not in the 1990's

Where did I claim otherwise?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

 

[Dschrute3]

Man, i kinda feel bad for ole Hillary. She can't catch a break. Humiliated again. She should just disappear and go play some golf like Obama.

 

[WillReadmore]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Democrats Used to Say Colin Powell Lied Us Into War with Iraq

uh --- really.

.......... Link?

You're too stupid to learn obviously.
Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said | The Huffington Post
Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq
Colin Powell's Disgraceful Lies
Powell Lies To UN
Sir Colin Powell, Who Lied To The World About Iraq, Now Lies About Obama « TARPLEY.net
Colin Powell Continues To Defend WMD Lies On Iraq

Those aren't "Democrats", Billybob. Nor are they "Electors".

Now media matters and Huff Post are RW groups according to moonbat.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Colin Powell went the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's and was a key factor in swaying public opinion towards the war.

He should apologize once a day every day for the rest of his life.

Amen. Rice should be right there with him apologizing, as she kept up her garbage about "mushroom clouds" when we knew for sure that Iraq had no nuclear program.

Hillary insisting al Queda was in Iraq and you leftards love her.
Bill insisting Iraq had WMDs while Bush was President and you bow to him.

 

[WillReadmore]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

 

[WillReadmore]

Colin Powell went the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's and was a key factor in swaying public opinion towards the war.

He should apologize once a day every day for the rest of his life.

Amen. Rice should be right there with him apologizing, as she kept up her garbage about "mushroom clouds" when we knew for sure that Iraq had no nuclear program.

Hillary insisting al Queda was in Iraq and you leftards love her.
Bill insisting Iraq had WMDs while Bush was President and you bow to him.

Idiocy. In the late 1990's we hadn't had an opportunity to keep up with inspections in Iraq. So, we assumed the worst - which is what national defense people sometimes need to do.

But by the time of the war decision, we knew what was in Iraq. And, what we found out was that war was NOT justified.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern.
Youre just partisan morons incapable of grasping reality and why Hillary is home drunk.

 

[pwjohn]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

How was the info he was given different from the info Clinton had in the late 90s?

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't), and said as much in Feb of 2003 in his speech to the UN.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again? He wasn't in office when Powell went before the UN.

Jr.'s admin told him that Iraq had WMD's (when they didn't),

They did have WMDs. We found plenty.

What exactly does Clinton have to do with this again?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

I read through some of that and the description of the chem weapons suggests they were old and to dangerous to handle. And most likely abandoned in place for that reason.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

 

[WillReadmore]

Link to an article on the found WMD's please.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern.
Youre just partisan morons incapable of grasping reality and why Hillary is home drunk.

You are failing to keep things in time sequence.

Clinton did NOT vote to go to war. She voted for the joint resolution on Iraq. That resolution limited Bush to two possible justifications for war - neither of which was met. In short, the resolution was a LIMIT on powers Bush had as president.

People think congressmen should have voted against the resolution on the grounds that Bush would twist its meaning - which he did.

And, yes there WERE reports of terrorists in Iraq during the early Bush administration, but they were shown to be fabrications promoted by the Bush administration - even after they were known to be totally false. Saddam had NO interest in terrorists in his country.

No, we don't go to war over paperwork. Your C is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not sure which cases of war you mean, so until you state what you're talking about, it's hard to respond.

But, let me point out that we are not at war with Syria and we led the NATO overthrow of Libya for less than a month - and action motivated by the fact that Libyan forces were slaughtering civilians.

You're getting desperate.

 

[WillReadmore]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

No, we had significant new information gathered by inspections in Iraq under UNSC auspices. The inspections showed that the WMD situation in Iraq during the Bush administration was NOTHING like it had been 10 years previous or like we were worried that it might be, since it had been so long since we had real intel.

Powell got duped. He said so. I don't know who mocked him, but there is NO doubt that he lost MAJOR amounts of his rather substantial credibility over his fiasco at the UNSC.

 

[Weatherman2020]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern.
Youre just partisan morons incapable of grasping reality and why Hillary is home drunk.

You are failing to keep things in time sequence.

Clinton did NOT vote to go to war. She voted for the joint resolution on Iraq. That resolution limited Bush to two possible justifications for war - neither of which was met. In short, the resolution was a LIMIT on powers Bush had as president.

People think congressmen should have voted against the resolution on the grounds that Bush would twist its meaning - which he did.

And, yes there WERE reports of terrorists in Iraq during the early Bush administration, but they were shown to be fabrications promoted by the Bush administration - even after they were known to be totally false. Saddam had NO interest in terrorists in his country.

No, we don't go to war over paperwork. Your C is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not sure which cases of war you mean, so until you state what you're talking about, it's hard to respond.

But, let me point out that we are not at war with Syria and we led the NATO overthrow of Libya for less than a month - and action motivated by the fact that Libyan forces were slaughtering civilians.

You're getting desperate.

You lefties love to revise history.


A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance. READ THE UN RESOLUTION.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern. AMERICANS IN COMBAT IN SYRIA AND LIBYA AND LEFTY SAYS WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH SYRIA OR LIBYA!

 

[Weatherman2020]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

No, we had significant new information gathered by inspections in Iraq under UNSC auspices. The inspections showed that the WMD situation in Iraq during the Bush administration was NOTHING like it had been 10 years previous or like we were worried that it might be, since it had been so long since we had real intel.

Powell got duped. He said so. I don't know who mocked him, but there is NO doubt that he lost MAJOR amounts of his rather substantial credibility over his fiasco at the UNSC.

Your lack of links to support anything proves your a liar.
Now go find your links and use media matters or another Soros website.

 

[WillReadmore]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

No, we had significant new information gathered by inspections in Iraq under UNSC auspices. The inspections showed that the WMD situation in Iraq during the Bush administration was NOTHING like it had been 10 years previous or like we were worried that it might be, since it had been so long since we had real intel.

Powell got duped. He said so. I don't know who mocked him, but there is NO doubt that he lost MAJOR amounts of his rather substantial credibility over his fiasco at the UNSC.

Your lack of links to support anything proves your a liar.
Now go find your links and use media matters or another Soros website.

lol - if you can't find the joint resolution on Iraq then that's just the way it is.

That resolution is the key element.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

No, we had significant new information gathered by inspections in Iraq under UNSC auspices. The inspections showed that the WMD situation in Iraq during the Bush administration was NOTHING like it had been 10 years previous or like we were worried that it might be, since it had been so long since we had real intel.

Powell got duped. He said so. I don't know who mocked him, but there is NO doubt that he lost MAJOR amounts of his rather substantial credibility over his fiasco at the UNSC.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

CNN.com - Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote - Apr 21, 2004

DOH!

 

[Weatherman2020]

I've never said anything like that. However, I do know that Colin Powell was manipulated by the Bush admin so that he thought he was telling the truth when he went before the UN.

Powell didn't lie. He was simply passing on the information he was given, and the information he was given by Jr. and his admin was false.

Colin Powell was manipulated by Bush? Really? Come full circle and state the truth that Bush used Clinton's intel as "slam dunk" for building the case for invasion of Iraq. Further, talk about Powell whining about "the tent" of the Republicans. What did he get from the Obama Admin over 8 years? Nothing but being mocked at behind closed doors.

No, we had significant new information gathered by inspections in Iraq under UNSC auspices. The inspections showed that the WMD situation in Iraq during the Bush administration was NOTHING like it had been 10 years previous or like we were worried that it might be, since it had been so long since we had real intel.

Powell got duped. He said so. I don't know who mocked him, but there is NO doubt that he lost MAJOR amounts of his rather substantial credibility over his fiasco at the UNSC.

Your lack of links to support anything proves your a liar.
Now go find your links and use media matters or another Soros website.

lol - if you can't find the joint resolution on Iraq then that's just the way it is.

That resolution is the key element.

Lefty claims Saddamn had no responsibility! DOH!

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;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub- components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

 

[WillReadmore]

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

That is NOT a justification for war. The war cost trillions, it cost thousands of American lives, it led to ISIS.

Let's get this in perspective - it was CLEARLY the worst decision made in the history of America.

AND, it was illegal.

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern.
Youre just partisan morons incapable of grasping reality and why Hillary is home drunk.

You are failing to keep things in time sequence.

Clinton did NOT vote to go to war. She voted for the joint resolution on Iraq. That resolution limited Bush to two possible justifications for war - neither of which was met. In short, the resolution was a LIMIT on powers Bush had as president.

People think congressmen should have voted against the resolution on the grounds that Bush would twist its meaning - which he did.

And, yes there WERE reports of terrorists in Iraq during the early Bush administration, but they were shown to be fabrications promoted by the Bush administration - even after they were known to be totally false. Saddam had NO interest in terrorists in his country.

No, we don't go to war over paperwork. Your C is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not sure which cases of war you mean, so until you state what you're talking about, it's hard to respond.

But, let me point out that we are not at war with Syria and we led the NATO overthrow of Libya for less than a month - and action motivated by the fact that Libyan forces were slaughtering civilians.

You're getting desperate.

You lefties love to revise history.


A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance. READ THE UN RESOLUTION.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern. AMERICANS IN COMBAT IN SYRIA AND LIBYA AND LEFTY SAYS WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH SYRIA OR LIBYA!

A. Answered.
B. Time sequence problem. By the time of the war we knew what was in Iraq wasn't enough to justify war. Suggesting Bush was depending on some statement by BC is just ludicrous.
C. The UN resolution was not accepted by the UNSC as a justification for war.
D. You can't claim that we're at war in Syria. We're bombing there, but we're not at war. If we were at war, it would look VERY different. Libya was a NATO operation which we led from offshore for a short period at the beginning. We then played a support role, with France taking the majority of air assaults and Libyans providing the ground troops. Those are just facts.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Right. They found some ancient shells in unusable condition.

Mostly.

That is NOT a justification for war.

There were several justifications.

AND, it was illegal.

Why do you feel that?

What info did the Clinton admin have about Iraq in the late 90s?

^
^
^
You keep avoiding the question, why?

No. The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq. Those conditions were not met. Yet, Bush went to war anyway.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant. By the time of the war, we had far more accurate information on what Iraq had. And, that was ridiculous as a cause for war, obviously.

I'm fine with Bush pushing to have UN inspections of Iraq. That was a good step. But, it did NOT justify war - as the UNSC correctly pointed out.

As for Saddam, one must remember that Iraq had been in a war with Iran, and that without support of the US, there was NO CHANCE that he could have defended Iraq against conquest by Iran.

Do you think Saddam could depend on the US for military support against Iran in the post 2001 situation as we had supported Iraq in the past?

One of our military analysts during the early Bush administration pointed out that Iran could have taken the southern half of Iraq using an ice cream cart and a bull horn. That is, Shiites there would have welcomed Iran. All Saddam had for defense was woofing about WMDs. His military was garbage, and he couldn't even move it around his own country, because we wouldn't allow it.

So, the USA in all its unbelievable stupidity interpreted that woofing as some sort fact more important than the actual evidence we found on the ground!!! And, the PNACers all over the Bush administration pumped the idea that we could have permanent bases if only we conquered Iraq ourselves!


Again - conquering Iraq was the most stupid decision ever made in the name of America.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern.
Youre just partisan morons incapable of grasping reality and why Hillary is home drunk.

You are failing to keep things in time sequence.

Clinton did NOT vote to go to war. She voted for the joint resolution on Iraq. That resolution limited Bush to two possible justifications for war - neither of which was met. In short, the resolution was a LIMIT on powers Bush had as president.

People think congressmen should have voted against the resolution on the grounds that Bush would twist its meaning - which he did.

And, yes there WERE reports of terrorists in Iraq during the early Bush administration, but they were shown to be fabrications promoted by the Bush administration - even after they were known to be totally false. Saddam had NO interest in terrorists in his country.

No, we don't go to war over paperwork. Your C is just plain ridiculous.

I'm not sure which cases of war you mean, so until you state what you're talking about, it's hard to respond.

But, let me point out that we are not at war with Syria and we led the NATO overthrow of Libya for less than a month - and action motivated by the fact that Libyan forces were slaughtering civilians.

You're getting desperate.

You lefties love to revise history.


A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance. READ THE UN RESOLUTION.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern. AMERICANS IN COMBAT IN SYRIA AND LIBYA AND LEFTY SAYS WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH SYRIA OR LIBYA!

A. Answered.
B. Time sequence problem. By the time of the war we knew what was in Iraq wasn't enough to justify war. Suggesting Bush was depending on some statement by BC is just ludicrous.
C. The UN resolution was not accepted by the UNSC as a justification for war.
D. You can't claim that we're at war in Syria. We're bombing there, but we're not at war. If we were at war, it would look VERY different. Libya was a NATO operation which we led from offshore for a short period at the beginning. We then played a support role, with France taking the majority of air assaults and Libyans providing the ground troops. Those are just facts.

A. Hillary said al queda was in Iraq and voted for war. PERIOD, FACT IS FACT.
B. Bill said Iraq had WMDs when Bush was President. PERIOD,MFACT IS FACT. IRAQ HAD WMD WHEN BUSH WAS PRESIDENT, SO THERE WAS NO LIE.
C. It wasn't anyone's responsibility but Saddamns to prove he was in compliance. READ THE UN RESOLUTION. IRAQ WAS A THREAT TO AMERICAN INTERESTS. ASK EVERY DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE THEN.
D. Since then Obama has started wars with 3 more nations without Congress or your precious UN. None of those nations are a threat to America and you leftists haven't uttered a peep of concern. AMERICANS IN COMBAT IN SYRIA AND LIBYA AND LEFTY SAYS WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH SYRIA OR LIBYA! YOURE A PARTISAN DUMBASS CLAIMING KILLING GOVERNMENT LEADERS TO OVERTHROW GOVERNMENTS IS NOT AN ACT OF WAR.