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

[Weatherman2020]

Troops are fighting and dying in Libya and Syria and the left claim it's not war.

 

[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.

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

 

[WillReadmore]

Troops are fighting and dying in Libya and Syria and the left claim it's not war.

In Syria, there certainly is an action there, but nobody has declared war, and our objective is not and never has been that of conquering Syria. US strategy has been to negotiate a regime change while using air power to reduce ISIS - knowing that air power by the US is not sufficient to eliminate ISIS.

In Libya, it was a NATO action that we took part in. All I'm saying there is that it was never a unilateral, unsanctioned action, which was implied in at least one post above.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Troops are fighting and dying in Libya and Syria and the left claim it's not war.

In Syria, there certainly is an action there, but nobody has declared war, and our objective is not and never has been that of conquering Syria. US strategy has been to negotiate a regime change while using air power to reduce ISIS - knowing that air power by the US is not sufficient to eliminate ISIS.

In Libya, it was a NATO action that we took part in. All I'm saying there is that it was never a unilateral, unsanctioned action, which was implied in at least one post above.

In Syria, there certainly is an action there, but nobody has declared war,

When was the last declared war, moron?

 

[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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

 

[WillReadmore]

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

Again, you're quoting a document that was not used by Bush in justifying the conquest of Iraq.

It's BS to use Syria and Libya as an argument in FAVOR of what Bush did. It just doesn't work that way. No president gets to conquer a country on the grounds that some other president conquered some other country. That's just not a justification for war.

If you want to discuss Syria and/or Libya, I'm ready.

 

[WillReadmore]

Troops are fighting and dying in Libya and Syria and the left claim it's not war.

In Syria, there certainly is an action there, but nobody has declared war, and our objective is not and never has been that of conquering Syria. US strategy has been to negotiate a regime change while using air power to reduce ISIS - knowing that air power by the US is not sufficient to eliminate ISIS.

In Libya, it was a NATO action that we took part in. All I'm saying there is that it was never a unilateral, unsanctioned action, which was implied in at least one post above.

In Syria, there certainly is an action there, but nobody has declared war,

When was the last declared war, moron?

Yes. You aren't doing well here.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

Again, you're quoting a document that was not used by Bush in justifying the conquest of Iraq.

It's BS to use Syria and Libya as an argument in FAVOR of what Bush did. It just doesn't work that way. No president gets to conquer a country on the grounds that some other president conquered some other country. That's just not a justification for war.

If you want to discuss Syria and/or Libya, I'm ready.

What else is Soros telling you to parrot?

 

[WillReadmore]

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

Again, you're quoting a document that was not used by Bush in justifying the conquest of Iraq.

It's BS to use Syria and Libya as an argument in FAVOR of what Bush did. It just doesn't work that way. No president gets to conquer a country on the grounds that some other president conquered some other country. That's just not a justification for war.

If you want to discuss Syria and/or Libya, I'm ready.

What else is Soros telling you to parrot?

I have no idea what Soros or the Koch brothers or Trump or any other such persons thinks of any of this.

I'm just interested in what we do and why.

Your declaration of war question is actually interesting. We don't seem to actually declare war anymore. Plus, the LIbya case shows another serious weakness in our process.

In that case, congress had to wait 6 months before it could direct action on our Libya involvement.

But today, if we direct our military to take action it's going to be all over but the crying before 6 months is up - like it was in Libya.

That SHOULD be disturbing, I think. We're supposed to want congressional involvement. But, when those limits were set we didn't have the military we have today.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

Again, you're quoting a document that was not used by Bush in justifying the conquest of Iraq.

It's BS to use Syria and Libya as an argument in FAVOR of what Bush did. It just doesn't work that way. No president gets to conquer a country on the grounds that some other president conquered some other country. That's just not a justification for war.

If you want to discuss Syria and/or Libya, I'm ready.

What else is Soros telling you to parrot?

I have no idea what Soros or the Koch brothers or Trump or any other such persons thinks of any of this.

I'm just interested in what we do and why.

Your declaration of war question is actually interesting. We don't seem to actually declare war anymore. Plus, the LIbya case shows another serious weakness in our process.

In that case, congress had to wait 6 months before it could direct action on our Libya involvement.

But today, if we direct our military to take action it's going to be all over but the crying before 6 months is up - like it was in Libya.

That SHOULD be disturbing, I think. We're supposed to want congressional involvement. But, when those limits were set we didn't have the military we have today.

You obviously don't link to anything because you know you're full of it.
Go to the video game thread and leave the adults alone.

You're an obvious partisan hack who loves war as long as it's a democrat doing it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

 

[WillReadmore]

Again, the UNSC required that a meeting subsequent to the inspections would be required for there to be a war decision. That was confirmed by the US representative in this matter - John Negroponte. It was a key issue before the UNSC voted on resolution 1441.

At the midpoint of the inspections, Bush wanted to go to war. But, the UNSC was clearly going to push for completion of the inspections before any decision on subsequent actions. At that point, Bush pulled out of the UN.

Subsequently, resolution 1441 was NOT USED as a justification for war - which it couldn't be, obviously.

"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 ...."

Learn to read. Saddamn played cat and mouse and lost.
Oh, but it's OK for Obama to start wars against nations posing no threat without Congress or the UN cause he's Chicago Jesus!
Partisan leftist moron.

Again, you're quoting a document that was not used by Bush in justifying the conquest of Iraq.

It's BS to use Syria and Libya as an argument in FAVOR of what Bush did. It just doesn't work that way. No president gets to conquer a country on the grounds that some other president conquered some other country. That's just not a justification for war.

If you want to discuss Syria and/or Libya, I'm ready.

What else is Soros telling you to parrot?

I have no idea what Soros or the Koch brothers or Trump or any other such persons thinks of any of this.

I'm just interested in what we do and why.

Your declaration of war question is actually interesting. We don't seem to actually declare war anymore. Plus, the LIbya case shows another serious weakness in our process.

In that case, congress had to wait 6 months before it could direct action on our Libya involvement.

But today, if we direct our military to take action it's going to be all over but the crying before 6 months is up - like it was in Libya.

That SHOULD be disturbing, I think. We're supposed to want congressional involvement. But, when those limits were set we didn't have the military we have today.

You obviously don't link to anything because you know you're full of it.
Go to the video game thread and leave the adults alone.

You're an obvious partisan hack who loves war as long as it's a democrat doing it.

Oh, please.

And, here I thought there was a chance for an actual interesting exchange.

Wars aren't chips we trade off. It's perfectly rational to disagree with our policies concerning Syria, Libya and other places.

 

[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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(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."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(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."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.


So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(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."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

 

[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.

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.

UN Inspections??? The UN was doing business with Saddam....they had every incentive to prevent US from taking him out.

 

[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.

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.

So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(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."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

You prove my point. Iraq and Afghanistan were not a threat to US interests, but Libya, Syria are.
You're just a partisan hack.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The possible reasons for war are spelled out in the joint resolution on Iraq.


So list them.

You and the rest of the desperate Bush defenders love pointing at history. But, what Iraq had in the 1990's is irrelevant.

What did he have in the 1990s?

It's best if you just read the joint resolution on Iraq.

As for what we knew about in Iraq, it tapered off since the days of Rumsfeld helping Iraq in their war with Iran. We were delivering Iraq chem precursors and advising Iraq on how to use them to create WMDs and use them. At the time Reagan didn't want either side to win, so the US was simply working to perpetuate the war.

Again, what they had in the 1990s is irrelevant, because we had information from the inspections that Bush forced to take place in the pre-war period of his administration. Plus, most if not all of their 1990's chem weapons were far too old to be of military use. Such weapons have a known shelf life that is far shorter than the 12 year gap in our first hand knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq.

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.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Sounds good to me. Where are the grounds for impeachment?

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:
"(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."

1. We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs. They were dead poor. They had no friends ready to defend them. Had we walked away, Iran probably would have just eaten them for lunch, perhaps choosing to leave a separate place for Kurds. The "continuing threat posed by Iraq" was no longer in existence - it had been resolved. Suggesting war was required on these grounds matches NOTHING about how the US makes a war decision - there was no imminent threat, there was no attack worthy of war, there was nothing impending, etc.

2. Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war. Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken, (2) would have allowed Bush to enter Iraq with our military. But, the only UNSC resolution in effect did not call for that.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution. That IS an impeachable offense - not that congress was at all likely to actually do that.

The war was not justified on either of the two conditions to which he was limited:

Your opinion is very interesting.

We weren't threatened by Iraq. Iraq had no military and no WMDs.

Ditto.

Enforcement of UNSC resolutions couldn't mean war as there were no resolutions requiring war.

There were UN resolutions. Enforcing them, according to the joint resolution, could justify force.
It doesn't matter if the UN resolutions said anything about war.

Had the UNSC resolved that military action should be taken

UN permission isn't required.

My point with impeachment is that he went outside the will of congress as expressed in this joint resolution.

He didn't.

There was exactly ONE UNSC resolution in effect. That was resolution 1441, which was explicitly declared to subsume all previous resolutions.

The UN portion of the joint congressional authorization, the (2) clause, couldn't justify the Bush war, as America agreed that the authorization had no "automaticity" as they called it. That is, Bush/America agreed that 1441 wasn't a justification for the use of force - that another meeting would be required to determine that, should the need arise.

So, you may note that the Bush administration never used the UNSC as a justification for conquering Iraq.

This isn't just MY argument - the fact that (2) wasn't the justification for war is born out by the statements of the Bush administration.

What were the UN resolutions that authorized the American invasions of Libya and Syria?