So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11640567

Again, I don't agree with what he did, but that's what he did. Now, I have to assume that had he still been president and the time came, and he saw Iraq was still unable to defend itself against growing and increasing terrorist elements, he would have rescinded the withdrawal.

Bush could not 'rescind the withdrawal' without Iraq's consent. Bush was smacked around by Maliki for two years before he was forced to agree to Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr's terms of the 2008 SOFA. There is no reason to believe that Bush would not have continued to be run over by Maliki by the end of 2011. Obama stood up to Maliki's dictatorial Shiite dominant over-reach and Maliki is thankfully gone. Iraq is better off with Maliki gone. But its going to take a while to rid Iraq of the stench of Maliki's power grab, Shiite dominated cronyism and destroying the Iraq army and police command and control.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11640567

Bush had agreed to a timetable for withdrawal after months of saying he would not do so.

Bush had no choice. It shows how little you know about Iraq. In December 2007 Maliki wrote to the UNSC requesting that the US occupation and authority granted to the US under chapter 7 of the UNSC come to an end within one year. The UN granted Malik's request. US troops would have no right to be in Iraq after December 31, 2008 unless they negotiated a SOFA that could keep them there which had to be approved by Iraq's Parliament under Iraqi law. Bush was forced to agree to all Iraqi terms including the withdrawal from Iraq cities by June 2009, and agree that Iraqis had to approve all US military operations, and all troops had to be gone by the end of 2011. If Bush did not agree the Iraqis were persistent, Bush would have had to pull 140,000 troops out of Iraq in one month. That would have been a logistical nightmare. Bush thought he was going to get to keep five permanent bases in Iraq and a long term SOFA granting immunity to our troops to last forever. Maliki was taking over the police and military and stuffing those agencies with his cronies. He really did not want the US military hanging around poking their noses into the corruption and cronyism that Maliki was setting up.

By the end of 2011 the Iraqis were in an even stronger position to demand that the 2008 SOFA would stand. All troops had to leave or stay without immunity from Iraqi courts. The Iraqis very would not extend immunity . It was not negotiable to them and very few in Parliament would approve it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11640541

He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections.

None of that is true. Plus SH immediately offered an unlimited opportunity to open up his country to the CIA. and US Military WMD experts and the FBI. Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed.

 

[Boss]

Boss 11640567

Now you are trying to conflate what I said regarding radical Islamic terrorists with Saddam Hussein. I said nothing about killing all Iraqis.

I did not conflate what you said. You wrote what you wrote. Those two sentences from you are not compatible. You said you supported the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror under the simple reasoning that we kill them NOW instead of dealing with them later. And I never came close to even remotely suggesting that you said anything about killing all Iraqis. That's just another stupid and dishonest dodge on your part. I said "The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade never entered your 'simple' mind as you were cheering Bush on to start his stupid war." How on earth did you construe that to mean 'them' was 'all Iraqis'. My use of the term 'them' was in reference to your 'kill them NOW instead of dealing with 'them' later. That is referring to 'them' by you and me as terrorists. Your are quite ignorant to believe that I meant that all Iraqis were not in Iraq when I wrote, ""The fact that 'them' were not in Iraq when Bush decided to force the inspectors out and invade...." You don't read or reason well do you?

Are you now going to contradict reality once again and tell us that 'terrorists' were in Iraq in such dangerous numbers needing to be killed immediately that Bush was forced to kick inspectors out and start bombing Iraq and invading in order to kill those terrorists linked to the 9/11/01 attacks there swith them later.so we would not have to deal with them later?

Well what the fuck are you talking about? I never said that we should've invaded Iraq to kill terrorists. I supported the invasion of Iraq AND I supported the War on Terror... those are two distinctly different things and I supported each of them for different reasons. I never thought terrorists were in Iraq.... never claimed they were or said that's why we need to invade Iraq... so I don't know where you got that from... Jon Stewart?

Now... AFTER we invaded, terrorists starting showing up! I think that was great... makes them easier to kill if they come to us! I had no problem staying in Iraq and killing more radical terrorists every day... suited me just fine! I think we have to kill every damn one of them, and again... if they want to make that task easier by coming to our soldiers in Iraq to be killed, that's fine with me.

Bush didn't kick inspectors out, he didn't give a shit what they did! He told them... better hang on to your nut sack, I'm about to unleash shock and awe! They voluntarily evacuated, as most people with sense would do. Bush was not obligated to follow orders from the UN.. he didn't even have to allow UN1441! Again-- I disagreed with him doing that, it was a total waste of time and all it did was give you something to whine and moan about.

You sound like that damn goofball Information Minister in Iraq who got up there every day and propped up the regime with one excuse after another. Did you fucking LOVE Saddam Hussein THAT much? Or is it just that you HATE George W. Bush?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11640541

He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections.

None of that is true. Plus SH immediately offered an unlimited opportunity to open up his country to the CIA. and US Military WMD experts and the FBI. Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed.

No, it IS true because Hans Blix said so in his reports... which came AFTER this so-called "deal" you keep yammering about. What the fuck does the FBI have to do with this? The Federal Bureau of Investigation jurisdiction ends at our borders, dumb shit. And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it.

And it doesn't really matter anyway! SH could have offered to turn complete sovereignty over to the US... he wasn't going to DO it, so what difference does it make what the lying bastard offered to do?

Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs. Blix conclusion when all was said and done was that the international community could not be certain about the status of his WMD programs.

So are you just intent on continuing to LIE about this until you make it the "truth?" ...Saul Alinsky?

 

[Boss]

Boss 11640567

Again, I don't agree with what he did, but that's what he did. Now, I have to assume that had he still been president and the time came, and he saw Iraq was still unable to defend itself against growing and increasing terrorist elements, he would have rescinded the withdrawal.

Bush could not 'rescind the withdrawal' without Iraq's consent. Bush was smacked around by Maliki for two years before he was forced to agree to Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr's terms of the 2008 SOFA. There is no reason to believe that Bush would not have continued to be run over by Maliki by the end of 2011. Obama stood up to Maliki's dictatorial Shiite dominant over-reach and Maliki is thankfully gone. Iraq is better off with Maliki gone. But its going to take a while to rid Iraq of the stench of Maliki's power grab, Shiite dominated cronyism and destroying the Iraq army and police command and control.

BULLSHIT... Bush could do any damn thing he wanted to do. We're not controlled by Iraq any more than we're controlled by the UN. Maliki may not have liked it but big fucking deal, who gives a shit what he likes? It's OUR soldiers who gave their lives to liberate Iraq! WE make the decisions, WE are in charge.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it.

You keep saying SH did not cooperate as required by Res 1441: I didn't concoct the very early offer by SH to cooperate fully by letting the CIA enter Iraq to prove that he had no WMDs. I posted Fox News who reported about the offer.


Boss 11631772

. You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for.

NF 11632646

Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades.

Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:

NF 11420054

This Fox News report from December 22, 2002 puts the lie to your claim....

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Published December 22, 2002 FoxNews.com WASHINGTON – Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

. Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox

How about you Boss? How do you square Saddam's offer with your bogus claims that Iraq did not cooperate under 1441. Bush rejected this immediate offer and refused to test it. Bush claims he wanted to avoid war if at all possible. Fox News - not me - reports how a war against Iraq could have been avoided and Iraq could be directly verified disarmed by the CIA right there on the ground in Iraq.

SH offered to open his doors to the CIA. Bush declined the offer. Bush can't claim faulty intelligence made him decide on war instead of inspections since he did not allow the CIA to get first hand knowledge about Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs, whether they existed or whether they did not.

What did Bush have to lose by immediately accepting such an offer? It certainly deserved a try at the time if Bush had no confidence with the UN?

Do you think Fox News concocted Saddam's offer?

 

[Faun]

Bullshit.

While it's true the U.N. does not control the U.S., the reverse is also true -- the U.S. does not control the U.N.

You make no sense justifying a U.S. invasion over U.N. resolutions without U.N. approval.

Wow... It's really funny when someone says "bullshit" then immediately admits it is true!

Uhm... The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441. Had Saddam complied with UN1441, the invasion could have been avoided. The issue was not SH obeying UN resolutions, if it were, we would have invaded them 17 times the previous decade. The issue was his WMD programs which he was not forthcoming about.

Now you're backpedalling as fast as you can.

Earlier, you said, "NO, Shithead! UN1441 was Saddam's LAST FUCKING CHANCE!"

Now you say, "The United States did not invade Iraq because they violated the terms of UN1441"

There is no backtracking, you're just a fucking moron.

UN1441 was the last chance Saddam had to come clean about his WMD programs. The WMD programs are why we invaded Iraq. Are ya getting that through your hard head? The invasion was because we didn't know about his WMD programs which he had ample opportunity to disclose and which UN1441 was his final chance.

You keep trying to argue he was complying, but that's not what Hans Blix reported. Our objective had nothing to do with getting Saddam to comply with a UN resolution. We didn't give two shits if he complied or not... we were always going to find out about his WMD programs, it was entirely up to him how that went down.

Now you say... oh well, he didn't have any WMDs... well then he was really fucking stupid then! Worse stupid than you, and that's saying something... because, IF he didn't have anything to hide, he should have disclosed everything and not obfuscated, protested, complained, obstructed, etc. That was a pure bonehead move IF he didn't have anything to hide. Why not comply with UN1441, let the inspectors do their job, confirm he didn't have anything and present the documentation requested to prove he had destroyed everything... then the sanctions are lifted, there is no invasion and he remains dictator of Iraq.

He chose to play the very same games he had played for a decade. Pretend to be willing to cooperate fully, then when inspectors arrive, start applying conditions and doing everything he could to obstruct their inspections. When Bush allowed the UN to try one more time with UN1441, he made it clear that this would be Saddam's last chance. He sought and received Congressional approval to use military force and he used it.

Spits the rightard who said the year 2000 was not the year before 2001; and agreed with me that Congress can't send troops to war after saying I was stupid for saying that.



Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs

Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and proceAs.

Note the use of "might be said"

Update 27 January 2003

.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.


I shall deal first with cooperation on process.



Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Stop lying about what Blix said about cooperation in general:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." Blix Jan 27 2003

 

[NotfooledbyW]

"The environment has been workable."Blix Jan 27 2003

Tell me one time "Boss" that Dr Blix reported to the UNSC under Res 1441 that the environment for inspections was not workable.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Faun 11641752

On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.

Its worse for the rightwing scrambled egghead. He is basically admitting that Bush43 didn't care about 1441 or the inspections. That confirms Bush was lying when he told Congress and the American People in September 2002 that he wanted a peaceful means to disarm Iraq through a new Resolution at the UN.

 

[Boss]

And NO he did not open his doors to the CIA and US Military! That's just a fucked up LIE you've concocted because you're an idiot who doesn't believe someone will call you on it.

You keep saying SH did not cooperate as required by Res 1441: I didn't concoct the very early offer by SH to cooperate fully by letting the CIA enter Iraq to prove that he had no WMDs. I posted Fox News who reported about the offer.


Boss 11631772

. You can fantasize that maybe he would have eventually cooperated, but that wasn't what UN1441 called for.

NF 11632646

Pointing out documented facts is not defending the terrible acts committed by the Baathist regime over several decades.

Saddam tried to cooperate directly with GW Bush by letting the CIA in as reported by Fox News at the very start of the 1441 inspections:

NF 11420054

This Fox News report from December 22, 2002 puts the lie to your claim....

Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Published December 22, 2002 FoxNews.com WASHINGTON – Saddam Hussein's adviser Amir al-Saadi on Sunday invited the CIA to send its agents to Iraq to point out to U.N. inspectors sites the Bush administration suspects of weapons development.

. Saddam Extends Invite to CIA Fox

How about you Boss? How do you square Saddam's offer with your bogus claims that Iraq did not cooperate under 1441. Bush rejected this immediate offer and refused to test it. Bush claims he wanted to avoid war if at all possible. Fox News - not me - reports how a war against Iraq could have been avoided and Iraq could be directly verified disarmed by the CIA right there on the ground in Iraq.

SH offered to open his doors to the CIA. Bush declined the offer. Bush can't claim faulty intelligence made him decide on war instead of inspections since he did not allow the CIA to get first hand knowledge about Iraq's WMD stockpiles and programs, whether they existed or whether they did not.

What did Bush have to lose by immediately accepting such an offer? It certainly deserved a try at the time if Bush had no confidence with the UN?

Do you think Fox News concocted Saddam's offer?

I don't know... You've not posted any source link to this and I never heard the story before. It sounds like something liberals have fabricated inside the vacuum of their anti-Bush blogoshpere or something. Hey, maybe it was in one of them Micheal Moore "documentaries?"

In any event, I seriously doubt the validity of the claim and IF the claim is true, I seriously doubt SH was serious or that the US declined the offer in favor of more UN inspections. Something doesn't pass the smell test here.

 

[Boss]

Spits the rightard who said the year 2000 was not the year before 2001; and agreed with me that Congress can't send troops to war after saying I was stupid for saying that.



Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you're saying 1441 was one last chance; on the other, you're saying Bush didn't invade over 1441.

We didn't invade Iraq because of a broken UN resolution. Sorry if you're too retarded to understand that.

UN1441 was his last chance to comply with the international community regarding his WMD programs. The WMD programs are why we invaded Iraq, not the resolution.

As for the lies you're telling... I never said 2000 was not the year before 2001. You interpreted that and I corrected you when you did it and apologized for the misunderstanding. I did the same with your misinterpretation of congress sending troops to war.

You are the kind of pathetic moron who can't argue a valid point. You are too inept and out of your depth. In place of that, you search for little trivial semantics details you can pick apart, usually by misconstruing what was actually said in the first place. When corrected on it, you continue to parade around like you've won some kind of argument that was never had. For days, you crow about this "victory" and strut around like you've done something brilliant. It must really be sad to be you!

 

[Boss]

Now you just keep ignorantly and stubbornly saying that "Blix reported the entire time that no Res 1441 inspections were obstructed." I've gone to the trouble of posting the exact text from the reports he gave starting in Jan 2003 through the invasion... every single report contains details of how the regime was obstructing, complaining, protesting, obfuscating and NEVER DID turn over the documentation requested about the supposed destruction of WMDs

Access to sites was not obstructed according to Blix:

Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and proceAs.

Note the use of "might be said"

Update 27 January 2003

.
I turn now to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq’s response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access. A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course. An initial minor step would be to adopt the long-overdue legislation required by the resolutions.


I shall deal first with cooperation on process.



Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.


Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Stop lying about what Blix said about cooperation in general:

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable." Blix Jan 27 2003

I've already posted the text from his reports, no need to repeat it again. UN1441 did not say that Saddam only had to not obstruct inspection sites. In fact, Blix actually says in one of his first reports, "it's not enough to simply open doors. This is not 'catch as catch can', Iraq has to be active and proactive." In his final report he continues to state that SH has NOT TURNED OVER INFORMATION REQUESTED!

You are pointing to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and claiming SH was complying... that is wrong. Providing a workable environment was not all SH was required to do. Not by a long shot. And it should be noted, the "workable environment" didn't happen until we had troops on ships in the Persian Gulf. Up until then, there was obfuscation, complaining, protesting and general defiance. All of it is reported by Hans Blix and available to anyone who wants to go read it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 11610236

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. Because 12 years of locking up the Iraqi economy and BOMBING them for 12 years and killing 100s of THOUSANDS of them in the process thru collateral damage or disease was NOT an acceptable alternative.

Burns my hide that the left criticizes Bush for DOING SOMETHING -- but never would actually step up to leaving Saddam in power OR offering a smarter plan. Pox on both sides...

You applaud Bush for doing SOMETHING called the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003? HRC announced that better plan when she voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq if necessary in October 2002. That was when there were no UN inspectors inside Iraq. She explained the better plan and she decided that something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein's violation of international laws regarding WMD and inspections. Would it be too much trouble for you to read it. in full and try to understand what she was saying?

In quotes is the full speech. No parts of it should be taken out of context. Here is one of several key paragraphs.

"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' HRC October 10, 2002.

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq' Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

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 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

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.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Bush got UN Res 1441 and disarmament was proceeding according to plan.. And you applaud Bush for lying about his preference to avoid war and disarm Iraq peacefully. That is a strange viewpoint because in the end Bush chose war when inspections were working to prepare the way for sanctions to be lifted. You have expressed interest in having those sanctions lifted. Would you not prefer they be lifted without getting 100,000 + Iraqis and 4484 US troops killed in the process? Could you justify your applause for Bush's bad decision that got so many killed wounded and displaced and helped to bring about huge deficits that greatly hindered recovery from the Great Bush Recession of 2008.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This too is a key statement from Senator Clinton October 10 2002. In regards to my previous post.

"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."

 

[Boss]

Bush got UN Res 1441 and disarmament was proceeding according to plan..

No it wasn't... this is a LIE. The reports from Hans Blix contains many details of how the inspectors were harassed, starting from Day 1. You can LIE like the Iraqi Information Minister if you want to, but those are the documented FACTS.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11643726

You are pointing to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and claiming SH was complying...

No you do not speak the truth about what my point is. I pointed to Blix saying "the environment is workable" and that means to me that Blix considered the environment to be workable from beginning to end. Blix never said the environment was not workable. So despite some very minor issues that you cited and the failure to produce documentation that SH obviously did not have, Blix as Chief inspector consistently reported that the environment for inspections was workable. The majority on the Council considered this positive and did not one time consider finding Saddam Hussein in material breach of his final chance to comply under Res 1441.

I am citing Blix to refute you original declarations that the 1441 inspections were a failure. What you are sayin below is is not true:

Boss 11617600

If you're talking about the last actual round of inspections they were a failure. He did not comply, he was giving UNSCOM the same old runaround.

If you are accepting Blix to be your reference and authority on the success or failure of inspections you have to take the entirety of what Blix stated and reported. None of the infractions that Blix cited were to a degree that rendered the environment for inspections unworkable.

Therefore the inspections were not a failure as you have only in ignorance determined to be the case.

A few more months and they would have been a success. Bush destroyed the chance for complete success of the inspections / it was not SH.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11644768

The reports from Hans Blix contains many details of how the inspectors were harassed, starting from Day 1

Did Blix suspend the inspections for any of that minor harrassment? Tell the truth. You accept Blix as the authority which he was, so you must accept everything he said, not just a few things. And you must accept that Blix never once said the was no workable environment for inspections.

There was no infraction that justified ending inspections until all issues were resolved and long term monitoring could begin.

 

[Boss]

UN1441 did not give Saddam latitude to harass, complain, obstruct and make things difficult for inspectors. Nor did it allow unlimited time for Saddam to decide he should cooperate. Nor did it specify Saddam didn't have to take the inspections seriously until the US stationed troops in the Persian Gulf. That is all in the reports from Blix and is documented fact. In his final report, Blix concluded that SH had not provided documentation he was required to produce or eyewitness testimony to confirm destruction of certain WMDs which were unaccounted for.

You can make all the excuses you want for SH here but he simply didn't abide by UN1441 as he was so required. Bush was under no obligation to allow his charade to continue or to allow unending diplomatic efforts to get SH to comply. You can think that he should have... you can whine and complain that he didn't... you can bitch and moan that Bush took aggressive action... it does not matter to me! And it doesn't matter to history.