George Will says W 2003 decision is worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history

[JakeStarkey]

George Will is right and Redfish is wrong.

The only decider was GWB, and he did the wrong thing.

Grow up, admit your mistake, act like a real Republican.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?
Posted: 12/31/1969 7:00 pm EST Updated: 05/25/2011 12:25 pm EDT

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• Comment

• 

Which U.S. Senators voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq? 29 Democratic US Senators, and all but one (R-RI, Chafee) Republican. The full roll call on H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is here. The vote count was YEAs 77, NAYs 23.

Below is a list of the Democrat Senators who vote YEA. I wish everyone voted NAY, but note that, in additional to Hillary, a number of very good people voted YEA at the time. Obama did not vote on the resolution, because he was a member of the Illinois State Senate, rather than the U.S. Senate, at the time. Congressman Jim McGovern, a leading critic of the Iraq war, recently discussed Obama's 2004 comments on the Iraq war in this Huffington Post blog, which includes this 2004 Obama quote "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." I think that was an honest answer.

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea


looks like the V.P. agreed with GWB as well as Clinton, Reid, etc,, Kerry too.

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization. How many Republicans voted against it?

doesn't matter. it was a bi-partisan vote. Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region. Ever since WW2, our foreign policy has been a disaster.

You're wrong as always.

 

[Redfish]

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?
Posted: 12/31/1969 7:00 pm EST Updated: 05/25/2011 12:25 pm EDT

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• Comment

• 

Which U.S. Senators voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq? 29 Democratic US Senators, and all but one (R-RI, Chafee) Republican. The full roll call on H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is here. The vote count was YEAs 77, NAYs 23.

Below is a list of the Democrat Senators who vote YEA. I wish everyone voted NAY, but note that, in additional to Hillary, a number of very good people voted YEA at the time. Obama did not vote on the resolution, because he was a member of the Illinois State Senate, rather than the U.S. Senate, at the time. Congressman Jim McGovern, a leading critic of the Iraq war, recently discussed Obama's 2004 comments on the Iraq war in this Huffington Post blog, which includes this 2004 Obama quote "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." I think that was an honest answer.

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea


looks like the V.P. agreed with GWB as well as Clinton, Reid, etc,, Kerry too.

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization. How many Republicans voted against it?

doesn't matter. it was a bi-partisan vote. Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region. Ever since WW2, our foreign policy has been a disaster.

You're wrong as always.

Are you crazy? you post a list of dems who voted for it and then claim it was not a bi-partisan vote???????????????????????

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Social "justice" programs, not unilateral wars of aggression !

Lol

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Redf 10171339

Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region.

What on earth do you think 'we' were about to accomplish in 2009? Maliki was a disaster. And Obama did not pull the plug. Bush set the exact date when the plug would be pulled. And what news are you watching that made you think that DAIISH is taking over the entire region. The terrorist scum have gone no further in Iraq than trying to take over Sunni dominated areas. They have barely touched Shiite or Kurdish dominated areas and they are losing ground every day since the Obama led coalition of airstrikes has begun. You are grossly misinformed.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you crazy? you post a list of dems who voted for it and then claim it was not a bi-partisan vote

It appeared to be a bi-partisan vote in October but it really was not. Most Democrats that voted yes were voting to give Bush the authority to use FORCE if Iraq did not let the UN come in back in to finish the inspections. Bush lied to Dems about his intent. So Bush and the Republicans were voting for war no matter what Saddam Hussein and the UN Security Council did.

See HRC's speech on the floor of the Senate if you don't believe the truth in the following excerpts

In the second to last excerpt Senator Clinton expressed this: " Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

There is the truth about bi-partisanship. Senator Clinton's trust was betrayed by the liar in the Oval Office at that time of her vote. There was nothing wrong with her vote at all. Kerry has a similar speech saying the same thing.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Rosh10170095

You're a shill. Removing our military presence in the name of playing 1968 left the door open for the resurgence of anti-west islimism.

Is Retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus a shill. He stated recently on PBS that Obama critics like you cannot know what you are claiming to know. That anti--west Islamism door you say was left open by playing 1968 is a delusion on your part. The entire side of the anti-west barn was blown off when Iraq was invaded and the long standing balance between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia had the fulcrum of Saddam Hussein removed in the way it was removed.

If a rise of anti-west Islamism is you knock against Obama - you sure are not looking at the true cause of the rise at all.

But Petraeus knocks your mindset down with the flick of his little finger. There really is no value to your commentary as you have presented it thus far.

Got a link to your bullshit?

 

[frigidweirdo]

doesn't matter. it was a bi-partisan vote. Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region. Ever since WW2, our foreign policy has been a disaster.

Yeah, a disaster.

That is unless you really want oil producing countries like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Libya, who were anti-US, to be unstable as a warning to other OPEC members not to turn against the US or else see their countries turn into raging disasters.
Also unless you happen to be selling weapons to the US govt that continually needs to use them against the growing threat of [insert the group of the moment in the Middle East] who are trying to take over the puppet government of Iraq.
Also unless you happen to have policies that are about being tough on terrorists and other such things (like criminals) and then when there is nothing happening you feel almost naked, now with the problems in the Middle East you can claim to be tough on terror.

So people think it's going swimmingly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rosh 10172804 regarding NF 10171081, Rosh10170095

Got a link to your bullshit?

Of course I do. All my arguments and points are facts-based. Always. You should make that commitment.

The link is at the end of this exchange I had earlier to with EconChick.

Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

EC 9830423

NotFooledbyW, your charade is up. On Sunday, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Leon Panetta admitting that Obama should've left troops there.

NF 9830780

General Odierno at the time and General Petraeus recently made statements that do not agree with the way you have characterized what Panetta is going to say.

However, Odierno gave a vote of confidence to the Iraqi forces who had taken over security for Baghdad after U.S. forces handed over control. "The Iraqis wanted to be in charge; they wanted the responsibilities; and they have demonstrated that they are capable," he said.

- source CNN.com - 4,000 U.S. troops expected to leave Iraq in October, CNN, September 30, 2009.

“Petraeus was asked: Would it have happened if we had had 25,000 troops still on the ground?

Petraeus answered: "No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence."

No one knows whether forces there would have given us an influence. That’s the question for the ages. They were out of combat, out of the cities and out of the advising. <> So you have to ask what the mission would have been. And again, without knowing what mission Prime Minister Maliki would have allowed them to do, it’s hard to say how much influence they might have achieved, again noting that there was a quite a robust security assistance force and that did not seem to translate. <> As I said, I would have loved to have seen a force remain on the ground. I would have loved it even more if I knew that they were going to have a mission that would allow them to continue to contribute to the sustainment of the progress that was so hard fought and for which so many sacrificed so much during the surge and beyond

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...nt-a-surprise/

Is there anything else I can do for you before your run away?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are you crazy? you post a list of dems who voted for it and then claim it was not a bi-partisan vote?

Do you or any of the die-hard Bush defenders have any idea what Bush meant when he said "if it proves necessary"
prior to the request for an October 2002 vote in Congress on using military force against Iraq in order to avoid war if possible, and in the following excerpt?

"I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." Bush43 Oct ‘02 20021007n0001

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and the neo-cons have had their asses handed to them in this thread.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SAB 10169279

George Will's article said nothing about one President's decision.

Of course he didn't because he didn't have to. There is no argument who the one president was that decided to discontinue the UN Inspection process and start a war instead. How do you read a plurality gets to make the 'determination' whether to invade or not?

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.

You do realize that when that language was written and voted on there was no way to 'know" if Iraq would allow the UN inspectors to come back in. That unknown therefore made it impossible know if war would be necessary in order to 'enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq' or would the peaceful diplomatic means work. So the October 2002 vote to authorize force if necessary actually delegated that decision to Bush to determine if massive military action against Iraq would be necessary at some future date if diplomatic efforts were to fail. Military action was not necessary in October 2002. I am quite certain that it was very much less necessary in March 2003 with the four months of intrusive inspections that were in progress at the time.

Who other than Bush determined that UNSC resolutions could not be enforced after four months of inspections appeared to most of the world's leaders were able to see?. If not 'only' Bush ... who else then?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SAB 10169279

George Will's article said nothing about one President's decision.

• Your reply in post 10169279 helped me recall that conservatives in the US do not know that the AUMF for Iraq was not a direct authorization for war. Yet they maintain so many myths as if it were. EconChick is a prime example of one who cannot know much about the AUMF because of the positions she takes. An example of that is Econ Chick's post :9820830.

EC 9820830

Oh, and btw, Saddam didn't strike our homeland but he did fire on our aircraft. Remember the no-fly zone? You folks tend to forget there were 23 different writs Congress sited for going to war with Iraq. Only 1 was WMD.

NF 9829877

Iraq did not fire on our aircraft after UN Resolution 1441 was passed. If Invading Iraq prior to UN Resolution 1441 was not necessary, how do you explain that it became necessary to invade Iraq when Iraq ceased returning fire after 1441. <> You seem to forget that the US and UK bombed the hell out of Iraq during the summer of 2002. <> Your writs argument is more foolishness from you. The invasion was about Iraq's supposed violation of UN Res 1441 for hiding 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' from the Res 1441 inspection regime.

9830857 regarding NF 9829877, EC 9820830

Now you sound like an idiot. And a disrespectful one at that. I've tried being respectful to you, but I'm not going to keep doing it. And tell you what idiot, I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm the one that's one step ahead of events, not you. And trust me, that's going to happen more and more...because I have a very long history of it. <> So you can stop your shit, or I will fucking pummel you with your ignorance.

.

• When EconChick made an argument that "Saddam didn't strike our homeland but he did fire on our aircraft" it shows she does not understand SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

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.

• First of all the NFZ's were not operated under UNSC resolutions.
• Secondly Saddam did not fire on US or UK war planes after UNSC Res 1441 was passed.
• So a quick reading of the two reasons Bush was to decide to use force against Iraq, the "firing on our war planes" could not be one of them unless they were fired upon after November 2002 when UNSC 1441 was unanimously passed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Will I have always generally trusted.

GW is right, and GWB was wrong at the one time he had to be right.

 

[Kosh]

The far right and the neo-cons have had their asses handed to them in this thread.

Says the far left drone that believes the history of Iraq started in 2003..

The far left just can not deal with the fact that their Messiah Obama is the one that is responsible for any failures in Iraq now..

 

[ninja007]

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Good for them. Saddam Hussein had not allowed UN inspections for 4 years and was in violation of international law that was distantly but indeed related to the 9'11 attacks by the potential nexus of WMD being provided to terrorists. There was a threat posed by Hussein's intransigence in Oct 2002, But the threat was eliminated when Hussein let the inspectors back in under UNSC Res 1441.

Voting yea on the AUMF pushed Hussein to resume inspections so war was not required.

you trust the UN inspectors? HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ninja 10175273

you trust the UN inspectors?

Absolutely! And a thousand times more than I would trust a man who claimed this was just cause for starting a war.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

That is because inspectors were right which was proven by the fact after the war started there were no WMD to be found in Iraq of any real consequence - Iraq did not have 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' bu. But Bush was not just wrong - Bush lied on March 17 2003 to the American people and the military people whom he was about to get them engaged in a major unnecessary war that he was not prepared to engage at all. He lied because ten days earlier he had no intelligence that allowed him to make that claim. Ten Days earlier he would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.as was documented in a draft resolution that he authorized to be sent to the UN Security Council giving that council ten days to declare Iraq in compliance or authorize war. If the council had ten days to declare Iraq in compliance it means that Bush did not have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Think about it. Bush lied about the intelligence he had to justify starting a war. And think about the UN Inspectors being right when they did not find evidence of WMD being hidden in Iraq while Bush was lying on the world stage.

And you question trusting the inspectors. What is wrong with you. hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had we told Bush to go to hell with his damned bad idea about starting a war in Iraq.

 

[Kosh]

ninja 10175273

you trust the UN inspectors?

Absolutely! And a thousand times more than I would trust a man who claimed this was just cause for starting a war.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

That is because inspectors were right which was proven by the fact after the war started there were no WMD to be found in Iraq of any real consequence - Iraq did not have 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' bu. But Bush was not just wrong - Bush lied on March 17 2003 to the American people and the military people whom he was about to get them engaged in a major unnecessary war that he was not prepared to engage at all. He lied because ten days earlier he had no intelligence that allowed him to make that claim. Ten Days earlier he would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.as was documented in a draft resolution that he authorized to be sent to the UN Security Council giving that council ten days to declare Iraq in compliance or authorize war. If the council had ten days to declare Iraq in compliance it means that Bush did not have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Think about it. Bush lied about the intelligence he had to justify starting a war. And think about the UN Inspectors being right when they did not find evidence of WMD being hidden in Iraq while Bush was lying on the world stage.

And you question trusting the inspectors. What is wrong with you. hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had we told Bush to go to hell with his damned bad idea about starting a war in Iraq.

So in other words the far left trusted Saddam!

Even the UN showed that Saddam could not be taken at his word, yet the far left would.

That should tell you something about the far left.

But then again you can not break through the far left religious dogma on display here..

However how can argue/debate anyone that believes that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

<...snip..>

30 instances where Iraq had refused to provide credible evidence substantiating its claims, and 17 examples where the inspectors actually uncovered evidence contradicting Iraq’s claims, including the planting of false evidence. There was page after page of how Iraq had obstructed the inspectors at nearly every turn over the years. On the bombs capable of carrying chemical and biological warfare agents, the report said that during 1992 Iraq had changed its declaration on the number of bombs it had produced, saying that it had produced a total of 1,200. That number was subsequently changed to 1,550. Given that information by Iraq, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had been unable to calculate the total number of such bombs. The present report says it had proved impossible to do so, but UNMOVIC had not discounted the possibility the chemical- and biological-filled bombs in the hundreds remained in Iraq.

All outstanding questions could easily have been cleared up in the
7 December 2002 declaration from Iraq. There should not be those outstanding issues to resolve, but there were. The present document showed that Iraq still had the capability to manufacture, not only chemical, but also biological weapons, and that it still had tens of thousands of delivery systems, including dangerous unmanned vehicles. In his report today, Dr. Blix had remarked on the paucity of information on Iraq’s programmes since 1998. Everyone was working hard to fill that gap, but Iraq was the one to do that if it was truly complying. Indeed, it would be inundating the inspectors with new information, setting out in detail all of its banned weapons programmes. Then, and only then, could the inspectors do the credible job of verifying, destroying and monitoring.

<..snip...>

Nobody wanted war, he said, but it was clear that the limited process and slight substantive changes in Iraq had come from the presence of a large military force, from nations willing to put their military men and women in harm’s way. The unified political will of the Council, and the willingness to use force if it came to that, would ensure that the disarmament of Iraq was achieved. Now was the time for the Council to say that the clock had not been stopped by Saddam Hussein’s stratagems and machinations. The resolution put forward for Council action was appropriate, and it should be brought before it in the very near future. The consequences of Saddam Hussein’s continued refusal to disarm would be very, very real.

UNITED NATIONS WEAPONS INSPECTORS REPORT TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON PROGRESS IN DISARMAMENT OF IRAQ Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Then again the far left will ignore this:

The UN s oil-for-food scandal Rolling up the culprits The Economist

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The far right and the neo-cons have had their asses handed to them in this thread.

Says the far left drone that believes the history of Iraq started in 2003..

The far left just can not deal with the fact that their Messiah Obama is the one that is responsible for any failures in Iraq now..

The history of the US invasion of Iraq that occurred right in the middle of the UN inspectors conducting the most successful inspection operation in Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation prior to the date that the war was started - did in fact begin in March 2003. Now if you an refute that you can avoid doing your 'cop-out' and put your argument in writing so we an take a look at it.

It is clear for all to see also that Bush set the date of the end of his war to find WMD in Iraq that started in March 2003 to be ended with the last troops being withdrawn by the end of 2011. All failures that occurred between 2003 and that complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq are on Bush.

And since Bush set up those troops to leave when he did ... all claims that troops leaving by that date would result in failure ... then those failures are on Bush as well.

Obama's main policy since 2011 has been to insist that Maliki change or leave. Obama with the peaceful transfer of power in Iraq has achieve the latter objective. No one should see that as failure. The IS terrorists have attacked Iraq with ferocity and wanton barbaric atrocities and mass killings. But they have stopped and are being reversed by the remnants of Iraqis forces, Shiite Militias, and the Peshmerga and US and other coalition air strikes. Its been less than two months since Maliki was peacefully dethroned. The tide is turning against the IS terrorists in Iraq already. Yet you seek to call it failure to undermine the US President in a time of war. You are the ones who are failing your country. Bush had five years to get Iraq right .. .he didn't get it right. Now you expect Obama to get it right in a couple of months. With Americans like you sho needs enemies?.

 

[Kosh]

The far right and the neo-cons have had their asses handed to them in this thread.

Says the far left drone that believes the history of Iraq started in 2003..

The far left just can not deal with the fact that their Messiah Obama is the one that is responsible for any failures in Iraq now..

The history of the US invasion of Iraq that occurred right in the middle of the UN inspectors conducting the most successful inspection operation in Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation prior to the date that the war was started - did in fact begin in March 2003. Now if you an refute that you can avoid doing your 'cop-out' and put your argument in writing so we an take a look at it.

It is clear for all to see also that Bush set the date of the end of his war to find WMD in Iraq that started in March 2003 to be ended with the last troops being withdrawn by the end of 2011. All failures that occurred between 2003 and that complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq are on Bush.

And since Bush set up those troops to leave when he did ... all claims that troops leaving by that date would result in failure ... then those failures are on Bush as well.

Obama's main policy since 2011 has been to insist that Maliki change or leave. Obama with the peaceful transfer of power in Iraq has achieve the latter objective. No one should see that as failure. The IS terrorists have attacked Iraq with ferocity and wanton barbaric atrocities and mass killings. But they have stopped and are being reversed by the remnants of Iraqis forces, Shiite Militias, and the Peshmerga and US and other coalition air strikes. Its been less than two months since Maliki was peacefully dethroned. The tide is turning against the IS terrorists in Iraq already. Yet you seek to call it failure to undermine the US President in a time of war. You are the ones who are failing your country. Bush had five years to get Iraq right .. .he didn't get it right. Now you expect Obama to get it right in a couple of months. With Americans like you sho needs enemies?.

Once again proving what I have been posting all along, to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003.

You just proved what I have been posting.