Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Nation building was not an argument supportive of invasion. You said you did not support the invasion. You supported nation building and so did I. Nation building was the necessary result of the stupid decision to invade.

If there was no stupid decision to invade There would be no nation
building to support.

You are very confused.

 

[Correll]

“The nation building argument was the argument that convinced me to support the invasion/war”. POST#3335

Nation building was not an argument supportive of invasion. You said you did not support the invasion. You supported nation building and so did I. Nation building was the necessary result of the stupid decision to invade.

If there was no stupid decision to invade There would be no nation
building to support.

You are very confused.

I'm fine. YOu are the one jumping all over the place.


Nation building was part of the argument for support of the invasion. That I was not convinced until AFTER the invasion should not confuse you about that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What are you talking about? You are confusing yourself.

What made you change your mind from not supporting the invasion to supporting the invasion?

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually …….

I did NOT support the invasion,

…….. and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305


Correll wrote: “The nation building argument was the argument that …….convinced me to support the invasion/war”. ……… POST#3335

But for you the nation building argument was five weeks after the start of the war
Which bad you realize now that you did nit support the invasion .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Nation building was part of the argument for support of the invasion.

There is where you are lying.

The AUMF denies any possibility that your lie is true.

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW wrote: IF Correll seeks to call me a liar he owes it to the readers
to explain precisely and define what I’m saying here is not true POST#3303:


NFBW wrote and posts language from the actual AUMF as passed: Why POST#3302 is indisputably TRUE!!!!

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding 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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

 

[Correll]

What made you change your mind from not supporting the invasion to supporting the invasion?

Correll wrote: But, now we see, (thanks I admit to your freakish attention to details), that actually …….

I did NOT support the invasion,

…….. and did not support the nation building until after the point about the invasion was a fait accompli. POST#3305


Correll wrote: “The nation building argument was the argument that …….convinced me to support the invasion/war”. ……… POST#3335

But for you the nation building argument was five weeks after the start of the war
Which bad you realize now that you did nit support the invasion .

And what is your point? Do you have a point?

 

[Correll]

There is where you are lying.

The AUMF denies any possibility that your lie is true.

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. POST#1519

NFBW wrote: IF Correll seeks to call me a liar he owes it to the readers
to explain precisely and define what I’m saying here is not true POST#3303:
....

The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.


It is a lie from you to claim otherwise.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.

NFBW wrote POST#3347: NOT according to the AUMF:

NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to acknowledge that the AUMF exists. How do you get nation building as part of the reason, justification, basis for war if nation building is not a UNSC Resolution that W can enforce? POST#3347

NFBW wrote: You have dodged the AUMF long enough. What can you argue about the language contained therein? POST#3347

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding 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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.

Is that based on your bad memory. I cite the AUMF. What do you base your pronouncement on?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

NFBW wrote: Correll originally called nation building an “argument for war” that was presented in the ramp up to war in a national debate. POST#3349

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue pand those who supported war, made their side's case.
And they won. POST#741

NFBW wrote: There was no national debate wherein nation building was an argument for war or part of argument for war by supporters of war from DIck Cheney to Joe Lieberman. Correll has a bad memory on the ramp up to war. POST#3349

NFBW wrote: When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq? POST#758

Correll wrote: I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. Post#766

Correll Wrote: 1. We had a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Your denial is just you being obtuse. POST M#1188

Correll wrote: The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion. POST #3346

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.

NFBW wrote: No, a push back in the war of ideas was not an argument for war. POST#3350

NFBW wrote: NO! The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was not part of the argument for authorized military action against Iraq or in support for an invasion for regime change. POST#3350

NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350

NFBW wrote in POST#3303: Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

Why {{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion.

NFBW wrote: There is no mention in the following about enforcement of a UNSC RESOLUTION to do nation building in Iraq. POST#3351


19 March 2003

Text: U.S. Has Clear Authority to Use Force Against Iraq
(White House documents Iraq's rejection of U.S. diplomatic efforts)
(3980)
The United States has clear authority to use military force against
Iraq to assure its national security and compel Iraq to comply with
applicable UNSC resolutions, states a White House report released March 19. Released in connection with the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the report summarizes the U.S.
diplomatic efforts over the past 12 years to protect against the
continued threat posed by Iraq's development of weapons of mass
destruction and obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security
Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
"Because of the intransigence and defiance of the Iraqi regime,
further continuation of these efforts will neither adequately protect
the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq," states the report.
The report also explains that the use of force against Iraq is "fully
consistent" with efforts by the United States and other countries in
the international war on terrorism.
"In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority -- indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty -- to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions," says
the report.
Following is the text of the March 19 report:
(begin text)
Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law
107-243
This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by
the United States, working for more than a dozen years with
cooperating foreign countries and international organizations such as
the United Nations, in an intensive effort (1) to protect the national
security of the United States, as well as the security of other
countries, against the continuing threat posed by Iraqi development
and use of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) to obtain Iraqi
compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
resolutions regarding Iraq. Because of the intransigence and defiance
of the Iraqi regime, further continuation of these efforts will
neither adequately protect the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
This report also explains that a determination to use force against
Iraq is fully consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, as
Congress found when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Iraq
continues to harbor and aid international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the safety of
United States citizens. The use of military force to remove the Iraqi
regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of,
the international war on terrorism.
This document is summary in form rather than a comprehensive and
definitive rendition of actions taken and related factual data that
would constitute a complete historical record. This document should be
considered in light of the information that has been, and will be,
furnished to Congress, including the periodic reports consistent with
the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
(Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
1. The Gulf War and Conditions of the Cease-Fire
On August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the
brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United
States and many foreign governments, working together and through the
UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security
in the region.
President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January
16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive
diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United
States to achieve U.S. and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the
UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990,
demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on
November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary
means to "implement Resolution 660," to implement "all subsequent
relevant resolutions," and "to restore international peace and
security in the area."
Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States,
other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy,
multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring
about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN
and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to
comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to
eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained
intransigent. The President ordered the U.S. armed forces, working in
a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to
liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out
of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq.
On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established
conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other
requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and
biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150
km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical,
or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to
international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or
support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit
such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq
communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the
cease-fire.
2. Iraq's Breach of the Cease-Fire Conditions: Threats to Peace and
Security
Since almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire,
Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those
conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted
inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by
the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998,
Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the
cease-fire led to military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under
threat of "severest consequences," Iraq signed a Memorandum of
Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access for their
inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime
suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on
the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation,
causing the inspectors to leave the country.
On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the
UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address
unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the
disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq
refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years.
3. Recent Diplomatic and Other Peaceful Means Rejected by Iraq
On September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations
General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act
decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to
compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and
delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and
security. The White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and
Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations" (September
12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President
initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions
and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct:
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the
will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among
other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the
Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and
crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing
to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing
individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti
property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.
The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of
diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on
October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for
terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and
support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The
entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
deception and bad faith.
In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and
after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously
adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq
"has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament
obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to
comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm
and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The
UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations
and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a
further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing
this final opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and
immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed
defiance and deception.
For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a "currently
accurate, full and complete" declaration of all aspects of its weapons
of mass destruction ("WMD") and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration
of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The
12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a
restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete,
inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to
address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had
previously identified.
In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to
cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half
months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial
surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials
for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats;
undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including
cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to
provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided
incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid
documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents
regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6,
2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to
declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or
missile procurements.
Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on
January 27, 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine
acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of
it." Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported
that Iraq's declaration of December 7 "did not provide any new
information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding
since 1998." Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq
had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts
have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in
Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in
response to the threat of use of force.
On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive
presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including
human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead
imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD
programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State
updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence
reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal
proscribed materials.
Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has
continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve
complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the
national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq
and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7,
2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft
resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to
cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR
1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by
President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to
try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On
March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the
UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six
benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in
Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with
the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President
traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose
Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm
that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to
achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite
these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of
relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other
countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly
after, as the President observed on March 17, "some permanent members
of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any
resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."
The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the
appearance of progress on process is meaningless - what is necessary
is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete
disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated
failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq
has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an
essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or
possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited
examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and
botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents,
proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of
mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The
Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam
Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range
missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons,
repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used
ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud
missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons
against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998
in Public Law 105-235, "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction
programs threaten vital United States interests and international
peace and security." Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that
"t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."
In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that:
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve
months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any
basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means
will adequately protect the national security of the United States
from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the
restoration of peace and security in the area.
As the President stated on March 17, "[t]he Iraqi regime has used
diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage." Further delay in
taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's
regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the
United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the
UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation
by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There
is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with
inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ
only diplomacy and other peaceful means.
4. Use of Force Against Iraq is Consistent with the War on Terror
In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings concerning
Iraq's support for international terrorism. Among other things,
Congress determined that:
-- Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq.
-- Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens.
-- It is in the national security interests of the United States and
in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through
the use of force if necessary.
In addition, the Secretary of State's address to the UN on February 5,
2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties
to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in
Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring
senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a
close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in
document forgery and explosives to al Qaida. Other terrorist groups
have been supported by Iraq over past years.
Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a
safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and
individuals who direct violence against the United States and our
allies. These actions violate Iraq's obligations under the UNSCR 687
cease-fire not to commit or support any act of international terrorism
or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory.
Iraq has also failed to comply with its cease-fire obligations to
disarm and submit to international inspections to verify compliance.
In light of these Iraqi activities, the use of force by the United
States and other countries against the current Iraqi regime is fully
consistent with - indeed, it is an integral part of - the war against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Both because Iraq harbors terrorists and because Iraq could share
weapons of mass destruction with terrorists who seek them for use
against the United States, the use of force to bring Iraq into
compliance with its obligations under UNSC resolutions would be a
significant contribution to the war on terrorists of global reach. A
change in the current Iraqi regime would eliminate an important source
of support for international terrorist activities. It would likely
also assist efforts to disrupt terrorist networks and capture
terrorists around the globe. United States Government personnel
operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government
documents and interviews with detained Iraqi officials that would
identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are
linked to terrorist organizations.
The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror,
and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international
terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world. The U.S.
armed forces remain engaged in key areas around the world in the
prosecution of the war on terrorism. The necessary preparations for
and conduct of military operations in Iraq have not diminished the
resolve, capability, or activities of the United States to pursue
international terrorists to protect our homeland. Nor will the use of
military force against Iraq distract civilian departments and agencies
of the United States Government from continuing aggressive efforts in
combating terrorism, or divert resources from the overall world-wide
counter-terrorism effort. Current counter-terrorism investigations and
activities will continue during any military conflict, and winning the
war on terrorism will remain the top priority for our Government.
Indeed, the United States has made significant progress on other
fronts in the war on terror even while Iraq and its threat to the
United States and other countries have been a focus of concern. Since
November 2002, when deployments of forces to the Gulf were
substantially increased, the United States, in cooperation with our
allies, has arrested or captured several terrorists and frustrated
several terrorist plots. For example, on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani
authorities, with U.S. cooperation. The capture of Sheikh Mohammed,
the al Qaida "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks and Usama Bin
Laden's senior terrorist attack planner, is a severe blow to al Qaida
that will destabilize the terrorist network worldwide. This and other
successes make clear that the United States Government remains focused
on the war on terror, and that use of force in Iraq is fully
consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
5. Conclusion
In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority - indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty - to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions.
The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under
the U.S. Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief
of the U.S. armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit
statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Public Law 107-243).
In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC,
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member
states, including the United States, have the right to use force in
Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The
Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq
in 1990. This resolution - on which the United States has relied
continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in
1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones - remains in
effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed
immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts,
including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United
States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of
self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Accordingly, the United States has clear authority to use military
force against Iraq to assure its national security and to compel
Iraq's compliance with applicable UNSC resolutions.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030319-usia08.htm

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote POST#3347: NOT according to the AUMF:

NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to acknowledge that the AUMF exists. How do you get nation building as part of the reason, justification, basis for war if nation building is not a UNSC Resolution that W can enforce? POST#3347

NFBW wrote: You have dodged the AUMF long enough. What can you argue about the language contained therein? POST#3347

NFBW wrote: There was only one pre-invasion justification for the authorization by Congress for a future war. It was WMD related RESOLUTIONS not nation building or any other UNSC Resolution regarding Iraq. POST#3303

Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

{{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SECTION. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant (*1 only WMD related being relevant) Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council (*2 future reference to UNSC 1441 which W gets drafted and approved - giving SH a “Final opportunity” to comply) to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant (see *1} Security Council resolutions regarding 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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

I have no problem dealing with the fact that there were multiple arguments and reasons for the invasion.

You are the one who can't deal with how people actually think.

We have covered all of this ground before. Do you have anything new to say? Why do you think discussing it again, will change anything?

 

[Correll]

Is that based on your bad memory. I cite the AUMF. What do you base your pronouncement on?

Yes. I recall it being discussed. Do you actually require me to find someone discussing it prior to the invasion? If I do that, will that impact your mind at all, or will you just stonewall?

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. POST #639

NFBW wrote: Correll originally called nation building an “argument for war” that was presented in the ramp up to war in a national debate. POST#3349

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741

Correll wrote: There was a national debate on this issue pand those who supported war, made their side's case.
And they won. POST#741

NFBW wrote: There was no national debate wherein nation building was an argument for war or part of argument for war by supporters of war from DIck Cheney to Joe Lieberman. Correll has a bad memory on the ramp up to war. POST#3349

NFBW wrote: When and in what constitutional or any other legal framework was the GingrichKrauthammer nation building case Presented to the American people and Congress of the United States of America by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq as a case for self defense against the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein being the dictator of Iraq? POST#758

Correll wrote: I found the WMD argument to be unconvincing at the time. WMDs are World War ONE technology, and I do not believe that we can restrict access to that level of technology. The idea of an rebuttal to the ideological argument of Islamic Fundamentalism was the more convincing argument to me. Post#766

Correll Wrote: 1. We had a robust discussion on the policy before the invasion. Your denial is just you being obtuse. POST M#1188

Correll wrote: The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was part of the argument supporting the invasion. POST #3346

So, what part of this do you not understand? Keep is concise. You get into trouble when you ramble. And no filler. That makes it harder to follow your chain of logic.

 

[Correll]

Correll Wrote: A big part of the argument for war, was that a functioning democracy in the ME would be a powerful ideological challenge to Islamic Extremism. POST#703

NFBW asked: Who made such an argument and when was it used by the Bush Administration to initiate a long term declaration of war against Iraq? POST#722

Correll wrote: I recall Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer making that argument. POST#741



NFBW wrote: No, a push back in the war of ideas was not an argument for war. POST#3350

NFBW wrote: NO! The argument for nation building as a push back in the war of ideas, was not part of the argument for authorized military action against Iraq or in support for an invasion for regime change. POST#3350

NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350

NFBW wrote in POST#3303: Here is the precise language in the the AUMF as Congress voted on in October 2002:

Why {{{ AUMF (*****) notes by NFBW

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 (*3 “to be” denotes “in the future”) necessary and appropriate in order to --

(*4 “in order to” in the future W is limited in using the military force to two “reasons for war)

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(*5 “and” is critical here. The national security continued threat being dealt with in the future must be related to relevant UNSC resolutions see *1 and *2)

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.}}} POST#3303

What are you doing?

 

[Correll]

NFBW wrote: There is no mention in the following about enforcement of a UNSC RESOLUTION to do nation building in Iraq. POST#3351


19 March 2003

Text: U.S. Has Clear Authority to Use Force Against Iraq
(White House documents Iraq's rejection of U.S. diplomatic efforts)
(3980)
The United States has clear authority to use military force against
Iraq to assure its national security and compel Iraq to comply with
applicable UNSC resolutions, states a White House report released March 19. Released in connection with the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, the report summarizes the U.S.
diplomatic efforts over the past 12 years to protect against the
continued threat posed by Iraq's development of weapons of mass
destruction and obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security
Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
"Because of the intransigence and defiance of the Iraqi regime,
further continuation of these efforts will neither adequately protect
the national security of the United States against the continuing
threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant
UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq," states the report.
The report also explains that the use of force against Iraq is "fully
consistent" with efforts by the United States and other countries in
the international war on terrorism.
"In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority -- indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty -- to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions," says
the report.
Following is the text of the March 19 report:
(begin text)
Report In Connection With Presidential Determination Under Public Law
107-243
This report summarizes diplomatic and other peaceful means pursued by
the United States, working for more than a dozen years with
cooperating foreign countries and international organizations such as
the United Nations, in an intensive effort (1) to protect the national
security of the United States, as well as the security of other
countries, against the continuing threat posed by Iraqi development
and use of weapons of mass destruction, and (2) to obtain Iraqi
compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
resolutions regarding Iraq. Because of the intransigence and defiance
of the Iraqi regime, further continuation of these efforts will
neither adequately protect the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.
This report also explains that a determination to use force against
Iraq is fully consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Indeed, as
Congress found when it passed the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), Iraq
continues to harbor and aid international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the safety of
United States citizens. The use of military force to remove the Iraqi
regime is therefore not only consistent with, but is a vital part of,
the international war on terrorism.
This document is summary in form rather than a comprehensive and
definitive rendition of actions taken and related factual data that
would constitute a complete historical record. This document should be
considered in light of the information that has been, and will be,
furnished to Congress, including the periodic reports consistent with
the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution
(Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).
1. The Gulf War and Conditions of the Cease-Fire
On August 2, 1990, President Saddam Hussein of Iraq initiated the
brutal and unprovoked invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United
States and many foreign governments, working together and through the
UN, sought by diplomatic and other peaceful means to compel Iraq to
withdraw from Kuwait and to establish international peace and security
in the region.
President George H.W. Bush's letter transmitted to Congress on January
16, 1991, was accompanied by a report that catalogued the extensive
diplomatic, economic, and other peaceful means pursued by the United
States to achieve U.S. and UNSC objectives. It details adoption by the
UNSC of a dozen resolutions, from Resolution 660 of August 2, 1990,
demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait, to Resolution 678 on
November 29, 1990, authorizing member states to use all necessary
means to "implement Resolution 660," to implement "all subsequent
relevant resolutions," and "to restore international peace and
security in the area."
Despite extraordinary and concerted efforts by the United States,
other countries, and international organizations through diplomacy,
multilateral economic sanctions, and other peaceful means to bring
about Iraqi compliance with UNSC resolutions, and even after the UN
and the United States explicitly informed Iraq that its failure to
comply with UNSC resolutions would result in the use of armed force to
eject Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Saddam Hussein's regime remained
intransigent. The President ordered the U.S. armed forces, working in
a coalition with the armed forces of other cooperating countries, to
liberate Kuwait. The coalition forces promptly drove Iraqi forces out
of Kuwait, set Kuwait free, and moved into southern Iraq.
On April 3, 1991, the UNSC adopted Resolution 687, which established
conditions for a cease-fire to suspend hostilities. Among other
requirements, UNSCR 687 required Iraq to (1) destroy its chemical and
biological weapons and ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150
km; (2) not use, develop, construct, or acquire biological, chemical,
or nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; (3) submit to
international inspections to verify compliance; and (4) not commit or
support any act of international terrorism or allow others who commit
such acts to operate in Iraqi territory. On April 6, 1991, Iraq
communicated to the UNSC its acceptance of the conditions for the
cease-fire.
2. Iraq's Breach of the Cease-Fire Conditions: Threats to Peace and
Security
Since almost the moment it agreed to the conditions of the cease-fire,
Iraq has committed repeated and escalating breaches of those
conditions. Throughout the first seven years that Iraq accepted
inspections, it repeatedly obstructed access to sites designated by
the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On two occasions, in 1993 and 1998,
Iraq's refusal to comply with its international obligations under the
cease-fire led to military action by coalition forces. In 1998, under
threat of "severest consequences," Iraq signed a Memorandum of
Understanding pledging full cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA and
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted" access for their
inspections. In a matter of months, however, the Iraqi regime
suspended cooperation, in part as an effort to condition compliance on
the lifting of oil sanctions; it ultimately ceased all cooperation,
causing the inspectors to leave the country.
On December 17, 1999, after a year with no inspections in Iraq, the
UNSC established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and
Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) as a successor to UNSCOM, to address
unresolved disarmament issues and verify Iraqi compliance with the
disarmament required by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions. Iraq
refused to allow inspectors to return for yet another three years.
3. Recent Diplomatic and Other Peaceful Means Rejected by Iraq
On September 12, 2002, the President addressed the United Nations
General Assembly on Iraq. He challenged the United Nations to act
decisively to deal with Iraq's systematic twelve-year defiance and to
compel Iraq's disarmament of the weapons of mass destruction and
delivery systems that continue to threaten international peace and
security. The White House background paper, "A Decade of Deception and
Defiance: Saddam Hussein's Defiance of the United Nations" (September
12, 2002), summarizes Iraq's actions as of the time the President
initiated intensified efforts to enforce all relevant UN Resolutions
and demonstrates the failure of diplomacy to affect Iraq's conduct:
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the
will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among
other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the
Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and
crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing
to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing
individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti
property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.
The President also summarized Iraq's response to a decade of
diplomatic efforts and its breach of the cease-fire conditions on
October 7, 2002, in an address in Cincinnati, Ohio:
Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction,
to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for
terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those
obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and
support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The
entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
deception and bad faith.
In response to the President's challenge of September 12, 2002, and
after intensive negotiation and diplomacy, the UNSC unanimously
adopted UNSCR 1441 on November 8, 2002. The UNSC declared that Iraq
"has been and remains in material breach" of its disarmament
obligations, but chose to afford Iraq one "final opportunity" to
comply. The UNSC again placed the burden on Iraq to comply and disarm
and not on the inspectors to try to find what Iraq is concealing. The
UNSC made clear that any false statements or omissions in declarations
and any failure by Iraq to comply with UNSCR 1441 would constitute a
further material breach of Iraq's obligations. Rather than seizing
this final opportunity for a peaceful solution by giving full and
immediate cooperation, the Hussein regime responded with renewed
defiance and deception.
For example, while UNSCR 1441 required that Iraq provide a "currently
accurate, full and complete" declaration of all aspects of its weapons
of mass destruction ("WMD") and delivery programs, Iraq's Declaration
of December 7, 2002, failed to comply with that requirement. The
12,000-page document that Iraq provided was little more than a
restatement of old and discredited material. It was incomplete,
inaccurate, and composed mostly of recycled information that failed to
address any of the outstanding disarmament questions inspectors had
previously identified.
In addition, since the passage of UNSCR 1441, Iraq has failed to
cooperate fully with inspectors. It delayed until two-and-a-half
months after the resumption of inspections UNMOVIC's use of aerial
surveillance flights; failed to provide private access to officials
for interview by inspectors; intimidated witnesses with threats;
undertook massive efforts to deceive and defeat inspectors, including
cleanup and transshipment activities at nearly 30 sites; failed to
provide numerous documents requested by UNMOVIC; repeatedly provided
incomplete or outdated listings of its WMD personnel; and hid
documents in homes, including over 2000 pages of Iraqi documents
regarding past uranium enrichment programs. In a report dated March 6,
2003, UNMOVIC described over 600 instances in which Iraq had failed to
declare fully activities related to its chemical, biological, or
missile procurements.
Dr. Hans Blix, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, reported to the UNSC on
January 27, 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine
acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of
it." Dr. Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, reported
that Iraq's declaration of December 7 "did not provide any new
information relevant to certain questions that have been outstanding
since 1998." Both demonstrated that there was no evidence that Iraq
had decided to comply with disarmament obligations. Diplomatic efforts
have not affected Iraq's conduct positively. Any temporary changes in
Iraq's approach that have occurred over the years have been in
response to the threat of use of force.
On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State delivered a comprehensive
presentation to the UNSC using declassified information, including
human intelligence reports, communications intercepts and overhead
imagery, which demonstrated Iraq's ongoing efforts to pursue WMD
programs and conceal them from UN inspectors. The Secretary of State
updated that presentation one month later by detailing intelligence
reports on continuing efforts by Iraq to maintain and conceal
proscribed materials.
Despite the continued resistance by Iraq, the United States has
continued to use diplomatic and other peaceful means to achieve
complete and total disarmament that would adequately protect the
national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq
and which is required by all relevant UNSC resolutions. On March 7,
2003, the United States, United Kingdom, and Spain presented a draft
resolution that would have established for Iraq a March 17 deadline to
cooperate fully with disarmament demands. Since the adoption of UNSCR
1441 in November 2002, there have been numerous calls and meetings by
President Bush and the Secretary of State with other world leaders to
try to find a diplomatic or other peaceful way to disarm Iraq. On
March 13, 2003, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN asked for members of the
UNSC to consider seriously a British proposal to establish six
benchmarks that would be used to measure whether or not the regime in
Iraq is coming into full, immediate, and unconditional compliance with
the pertinent UN resolutions. On March 16, 2003, the President
traveled to the Azores to meet with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose
Manuel Durao Barroso, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish
Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar to assess the situation and confirm
that diplomatic and other peaceful means have been attempted to
achieve Iraqi compliance with all relevant UNSC resolutions. Despite
these diplomatic and peaceful efforts, Iraq remains in breach of
relevant UNSC resolutions and a threat to the United States and other
countries. Further diplomatic efforts were suspended reluctantly
after, as the President observed on March 17, "some permanent members
of the Security Council ha[d] publicly announced they will veto any
resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."
The lesson learned after twelve years of Iraqi defiance is that the
appearance of progress on process is meaningless - what is necessary
is immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation in the complete
disarmament of Iraq's prohibited weapons. As a result of its repeated
failure to cooperate with efforts aimed at actual disarmament, Iraq
has retained weapons of mass destruction that it agreed, as an
essential condition of the cease-fire in 1991, not to develop or
possess. The Secretary of State's February 5, 2003, presentation cited
examples, such as Iraq's biological weapons based on anthrax and
botulinum toxin, chemical weapons based on mustard and nerve agents,
proscribed missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver weapons of
mass destruction, and mobile biological weapons factories. The
Secretary of State also discussed with the Security Council Saddam
Hussein's efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
The dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long-range
missiles are clear. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons,
repeatedly. He used them against Iranian troops in the 1980s. He used
ballistic missiles against civilians during the Gulf War, firing Scud
missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. He used chemical weapons
against the Iraqi people in Northern Iraq. As Congress stated in 1998
in Public Law 105-235, "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction
programs threaten vital United States interests and international
peace and security." Congress concluded in Public Law 105-338 that
"t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."
In addition, Congress stated in the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), that:
Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations by, among other things, continuing to
possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.
Nothing that has occurred in the past twelve years, the past twelve
months, the past twelve weeks, or the past twelve days provides any
basis for concluding that further diplomatic or other peaceful means
will adequately protect the national security of the United States
from the continuing threat posed by Iraq or are likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq and the
restoration of peace and security in the area.
As the President stated on March 17, "[t]he Iraqi regime has used
diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage." Further delay in
taking action against Iraq will only serve to give Saddam Hussein's
regime additional time to further develop WMD to use against the
United States, its citizens, and its allies. The United States and the
UN have long demanded immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation
by Iraq in the disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. There
is no reason to believe that Iraq will disarm, and cooperate with
inspections to verify such disarmament, if the U.S. and the UN employ
only diplomacy and other peaceful means.
4. Use of Force Against Iraq is Consistent with the War on Terror
In Public Law 107-243, Congress made a number of findings concerning
Iraq's support for international terrorism. Among other things,
Congress determined that:
-- Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq.
-- Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens.
-- It is in the national security interests of the United States and
in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United
Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through
the use of force if necessary.
In addition, the Secretary of State's address to the UN on February 5,
2003 revealed a terrorist training area in northeastern Iraq with ties
to Iraqi intelligence and activities of al Qaida affiliates in
Baghdad. Public reports indicate that Iraq is currently harboring
senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a
close al Qaida associate. In addition, Iraq has provided training in
document forgery and explosives to al Qaida. Other terrorist groups
have been supported by Iraq over past years.
Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism, and continues to be a
safe haven, transit point, and operational node for groups and
individuals who direct violence against the United States and our
allies. These actions violate Iraq's obligations under the UNSCR 687
cease-fire not to commit or support any act of international terrorism
or allow others who commit such acts to operate in Iraqi territory.
Iraq has also failed to comply with its cease-fire obligations to
disarm and submit to international inspections to verify compliance.
In light of these Iraqi activities, the use of force by the United
States and other countries against the current Iraqi regime is fully
consistent with - indeed, it is an integral part of - the war against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Both because Iraq harbors terrorists and because Iraq could share
weapons of mass destruction with terrorists who seek them for use
against the United States, the use of force to bring Iraq into
compliance with its obligations under UNSC resolutions would be a
significant contribution to the war on terrorists of global reach. A
change in the current Iraqi regime would eliminate an important source
of support for international terrorist activities. It would likely
also assist efforts to disrupt terrorist networks and capture
terrorists around the globe. United States Government personnel
operating in Iraq may discover information through Iraqi government
documents and interviews with detained Iraqi officials that would
identify individuals currently in the United States and abroad who are
linked to terrorist organizations.
The use of force against Iraq will directly advance the war on terror,
and will be consistent with continuing efforts against international
terrorists residing and operating elsewhere in the world. The U.S.
armed forces remain engaged in key areas around the world in the
prosecution of the war on terrorism. The necessary preparations for
and conduct of military operations in Iraq have not diminished the
resolve, capability, or activities of the United States to pursue
international terrorists to protect our homeland. Nor will the use of
military force against Iraq distract civilian departments and agencies
of the United States Government from continuing aggressive efforts in
combating terrorism, or divert resources from the overall world-wide
counter-terrorism effort. Current counter-terrorism investigations and
activities will continue during any military conflict, and winning the
war on terrorism will remain the top priority for our Government.
Indeed, the United States has made significant progress on other
fronts in the war on terror even while Iraq and its threat to the
United States and other countries have been a focus of concern. Since
November 2002, when deployments of forces to the Gulf were
substantially increased, the United States, in cooperation with our
allies, has arrested or captured several terrorists and frustrated
several terrorist plots. For example, on March 1, 2003, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani
authorities, with U.S. cooperation. The capture of Sheikh Mohammed,
the al Qaida "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks and Usama Bin
Laden's senior terrorist attack planner, is a severe blow to al Qaida
that will destabilize the terrorist network worldwide. This and other
successes make clear that the United States Government remains focused
on the war on terror, and that use of force in Iraq is fully
consistent with continuing to take necessary actions against
terrorists and terrorist organizations.
5. Conclusion
In the circumstances described above, the President of the United
States has the authority - indeed, given the dangers involved, the
duty - to use force against Iraq to protect the security of the
American people and to compel compliance with UNSC resolutions.
The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under
the U.S. Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief
of the U.S. armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit
statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002 (Public Law 107-243).
In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC,
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member
states, including the United States, have the right to use force in
Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The
Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq
in 1990. This resolution - on which the United States has relied
continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in
1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones - remains in
effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under
relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed
immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts,
including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United
States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of
self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Accordingly, the United States has clear authority to use military
force against Iraq to assure its national security and to compel
Iraq's compliance with applicable UNSC resolutions.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030319-usia08.htm

Excellent use of cut and paste. What are you doing?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Excellent use of cut and paste. What are you doing?

Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar.

There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words w sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned.

Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

What are you doing?

NFBW wrote: THE AUMF was specific - the only argument was to enforce relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’s UN required disarmament. POST#3350

Do you ‘remember’a different AUMF that includes nation building as a justification for invading Iraq?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Yes. I recall it being discussed.

NFBW wrote: Do you recall this being discussed? POST #3359

“The greatest thing that would come out of this for the world economy, if you could put it that way would be $20 for a barrel of oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country.” THE media tycoon that likely had a lot of influence on YOUR brain Correll posed that argument for invading Iraq and killing half a million Iraqis.

is that a legitimate case for war just because it was discussed and the bigger question for you is it your argument that if anybody discussed what any people think about anything about any benefits to come from invading Iraq, are those discussions themselves raised to the level that would cause the US Congress to pass a law to authorize the President to act based on all those random discussions?

 

[Correll]

Proving you are a liar when you say that nation building was one of many arguments for war by invading Iraq. Your deer in the headlights reply is further proof you are a liar.

There is no UNSC resolution to do nation building in Iraq and out of a zillion words w sent to Congress as required by the AUMF as justification for war, nation building is nowhere close to being mentioned.

Its only mentioned on this thread as a lie from your head.

I never said that it was in the Authorization. Would you like to address what I actually say?


I've admitted that WMDs, were a big part of the argument for the war. You showing that it was a big part of the argument for war, is a complete waste of time. It means NOTHING.


What are you doing? Your actions make no sense.