The Case For War

[Bodacious]

I just thought I would illustrate to you why we went to war. All of the left will say it was solely because of WMDs, as reaffirmed by Sen. Barbra Boxer in the questioning of Dr. Rice:

SEN. BOXER: Well, you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that, you know, particular vote.

Source

Here is the resolution that congress voted on to go to war with Iraq

Specifically:

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .

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.

Here is a list of UN resolutions relating to Iraq

You can see for yourself in that list of resolutions the weapons violations Iraq is responsible for as well as disrupting the activities UN weapons inspectors throughout the 90s.

The point is, Congress had the resolution to go to war. And there it is, black and white, that the only reason congress authorized the war was not solely based on WMDs.

I don't deny WMDs played a great deal in their decision, otherwise some senators wouldn't say they wouldn't authorize the war had the known no WMDs existed.

Barbra Boxer admitted she didn't read the resolution to go to war, as I quoted above. Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war based on the quoted resolution. Every democrat/liberal that says we went to war based solely on WMD is mistaken, as I have illustrated above that WMD was not the sole reason.

Also, I am not arguing that the war was the right thing to do. Argue that position all you want. Say Bush/Congress lied all you want. Just don't say WMD was the only reason.

 

[RZAL]

Why are you fabricating the truth with your dirty propaganda? You should be ashamed! Everyone knows the wars is all about oil…how dare you right wing conservative…


Good list...Thanks








The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"

 

[burner69]

No, the war was not soley about WMDs, but it was certainley the focal point.

"Saddam is a man addicted to WMDs"
"Saddam will not hesitate to use them against us."
"Saddam is a threat to the free world."

I'm sorry, but the emphasis in the build up to war was that Saddam had WMDs, not might have, but HAD WMDs, he could fire them in 45mins (which was a lie, not misinformation) and he wanted to use them against us (which was a lie).

I could debate that the coalition knew he had no WMDs as well, because I've read reports pre 9/11 that state the CIA believed that Saddam was no threat and had no WMDs.

And yes, overthrowing him was a good thing, I'll agree with that, but the methods stunk to high heaven, and when there's plenty of other places that would have been easier to sort out, and saved more lives, it certainly makes you wonder why Iraq was chosen - especially when you consider how rich in that much needed oil it is.

"How many coincidences do there have to be before something becomes fact" Some guy on these forums.

The fact that half the story during the build up to war was with good nature and based on fact, does not mean the whole thing was. The fact that we were lied to about many aspects means that, as a entireity, the reasoning we were given to go to war with Iraq was a lie.

I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

[Bodacious]

And? Your arguments affects mine how?

From my own post:

Say Bush/Congress lied all you want.

I don't care if you think that or not. The only thing I care about, in reference to my post, is morons like B Boxer running around saying that WMD was the only reason, when it wasn't.

 

[No Limit]

I would just like to make a suggestion, arguing with facts to this guy is useless; you will eventually have to resort to name calling.

Anyway...

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

The UN never had a resolution that said they would go in the battle. The last resolution before we went in said Iraq would have one LAST chance. This is why we had the inspectors on the ground to make sure that Saddam was compling (which he obviously was). However, Bush saw that the UN wouldn't find any weapons of mass distruction so he decided to go in before they could finish their work.

The point is, Congress had the resolution to go to war. And there it is, black and white, that the only reason congress authorized the war was not solely based on WMDs.

They had a resolution to go to war because Bush repeated WMDs every other word. He made it seem that if we didn't act NOW Saddam was going to launch a nuclear strike he was never capable of. Can you tell me if they found even a SINGLE banned weapon in Iraq after we went to war? Let me give you an example of how misleading our administration was. They showed many pictures of 'suspected' weapon factories producing WMDs, do you remember those? Now, do you also remember that we had UN inspectors on the ground? So tell me, why the hell couldn't we simply ask the inspectors to go look at those sights and before we went in to Iraq we would have known they were nothing. Why then did Bush decide to go to war before these inspections could take place? And please, instead of skipping over this and picking a couple lines from my post you can comment on address the entire post including the last question. Let's see how good you do defending the post you made that you clearly got from some article, not from your own research.

 

[burner69]

And? Your arguments affects mine how?

From my own post:

I don't care if you think that or not. The only thing I care about, in reference to my post, is morons like B Boxer running around saying that WMD was the only reason, when it wasn't.

I agreed with you - it wasn't all about WMDs, yet it was mainly about them. What's the point in this thread if you won't let anyone argue against your points?

"I think gay marriage should be banned, but I don't want to hear any views that oppose mine."
Stoopid

 

[No Limit]

Ok, I am spending too much time on this but whatever, lets see how well you do. You said WMDs were not the only case for war. Here is Bush's state of the Union right before the war. I took out only the parts that dealt with Iraq. The bold parts will be Bush talking about WMDs and the danger Saddam poses with those weapons while anything in RED will be him talking about human rights; something you say was the other large justification for the war.

Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.

This threat is new; America's duty is familiar. Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world. In each case, their ambitions of cruelty and murder had no limit. In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. (Applause.)

.....

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

.....

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
.....

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

Ok, he mentions human rights pretty much only once, how many times does he mention 'the thread' of WMDs? Also, if I missed any huma rights things please feel free to point it out, you can find the full transcript here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Have fun.

 

[Bodacious]

RED will be him talking about human rights; something you say was the other large justification for the war.

That isn't what I said.

Maybe you forgot to read this part:

I don't deny WMDs played a great deal in their[congress'] decision, otherwise some senators wouldn't say they wouldn't authorize the war had the known no WMDs existed.

Besides, it really doesn't matter what the president says. Congress gave him the authority to go to war based on the resolution I posted above. The resolution clearly states the reason for war isnt' justa about WMDs.

 

[burner69]

So what's the point in this thread?

 

[Bodacious]

I agreed with you - it wasn't all about WMDs, yet it was mainly about them. What's the point in this thread if you won't let anyone argue against your points?

"I think gay marriage should be banned, but I don't want to hear any views that oppose mine."
Stoopid

Where did I say you couldn't argue against my post?

What you typed doesn't add or take away anything to my post, just takes up space.

 

[No Limit]

That isn't what I said.

Maybe you forgot to read this part:



Besides, it really doesn't matter what the president says. Congress gave him the authority to go to war based on the resolution I posted above. The resolution clearly states the reason for war isnt' justa about WMDs.

See this is why I won't even bother with you. You say Bush wasn't misleading and the case for the war was not only about WMDs, thats exaclty whay you said. Yet, Bush never addresses the other things to the american people except maybe a couple lines out of an enitre speech. SO what is he doing when he does this? He is scaring the American people to think there is a threat when there really isn't. And do you know how the American government works? When Americans are scared Congress has to act on it. So please, spare the bullshit. If anyone that has an IQ over 10 wants to debate I will be happy to, your posts I will ignore.

 

[No Limit]

Lets do the same thing I did with the state of the union but lets apply it to the resolution:

in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas 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;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

[[Page 116 STAT. 1499]]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas 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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

[[Page 116 STAT. 1500]]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that 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;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President 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, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate 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, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]

SEC. 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 Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant 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 necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

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

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

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

[[Page 116 STAT. 1502]]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

Notice how the whole thing is bold? Now show me a single quote in that resolution that deals with human rights.

 

[Bodacious]

I would just like to make a suggestion, arguing with facts to this guy is useless; you will eventually have to resort to name calling.

Haha, yah, that's the spirit! If you can't beat them, attack them.

Anyway...

The UN never had a resolution that said they would go in the battle.

The resolution I posted was a US Congressional resolution. That is why it is called:

UTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution

The last resolution before we went in said Iraq would have one LAST chance.

Oh really? I guess why the last UN resolution before we went to war is about the, "temporary measure to continue to provide for the civilian needs of the Iraqi people until the fulfilment by the Government of Iraq of the relevant resolutions,..."

This is why we had the inspectors on the ground to make sure that Saddam was compling (which he obviously was).

Yah, like these UN resolutions here:

15 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom.

However, Bush saw that the UN wouldn't find any weapons of mass distruction so he decided to go in before they could finish their work.

YAH, ITS ALL A BIG CONSPRIACY THEROY, OH NOESS!!

They had a resolution to go to war because Bush repeated WMDs every other word. He made it seem that if we didn't act NOW Saddam was going to launch a nuclear strike he was never capable of.

Bush this and Bush that. The senators had absolutly no had in any of this huh? Keep pulling the wool over your eyes.

Can you tell me if they found even a SINGLE banned weapon in Iraq after we went to war?

Yep.

Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads in Iraq, July 2004

Two Soldiers Treated after Sarin Attack

Now before you start spouting off how that is not enough to be "mass destruction" let me remind you asked for a SINGLE banned weapon.

Let me give you an example of how misleading our administration was. They showed many pictures of 'suspected' weapon factories producing WMDs, do you remember those?

Yep

Now, do you also remember that we had UN inspectors on the ground?

Yep

So tell me, why the hell couldn't we simply ask the inspectors to go look at those sights and before we went in to Iraq we would have known they were nothing. Why then did Bush decide to go to war before these inspections could take place?

Simple, look at all the resolutions in the links I have provided above. There was over a decade of deception. So we are supposed to trust Saddam after a decade of lies?

And please, instead of skipping over this and picking a couple lines from my post you can comment on address the entire post including the last question. Let's see how good you do defending the post you made that you clearly got from some article, not from your own research.

Took long enough, but I am done.

 

[Bodacious]

You say Bush wasn't misleading and the case for the war was not only about WMDs, thats exaclty whay you said.

Where did I say Bush wasn't misleading?

So please, spare the bullshit. If anyone that has an IQ over 10 wants to debate I will be happy to, your posts I will ignore.

Thats just why you keep posting in here huh?

 

[No Limit]

Where did I say Bush wasn't misleading?

Ok, so you agree that Bush mislead the American people and congress? Yet, you still support the war?

 

[Bodacious]

Lets do the same thing I did with the state of the union but lets apply it to the resolution:


Notice how the whole thing is bold? Now show me a single quote in that resolution that deals with human rights.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OK

Highlights from your own quote:

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant 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 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.

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace

REPRESSION OF ITS CIVILLIAN POPULATION IS NOT WMDs!!

 

[Bodacious]

Ok, so you agree that Bush mislead the American people and congress? Yet, you still support the war?

I didn't say that did I?

If you want to have a discussion about Bush being misleading or not start another thread. That is not what this thread is about.

 

[No Limit]

I didn't say that did I?

If you want to have a discussion about Bush being misleading or not start another thread. That is not what this thread is about.

This is exactly what the thread is about, the thread is called "The Case For War", Bush misleading the nation about the case for war has everything to do with it.

So you said you didn't say he was misleading and you didn't say he wasn't. Which is it? Was he misleading the American people or was he being honest? Simple question.

As long as you continue to make good points I will respond, but please, spare me the bullshit unlike yesterday.

 

[No Limit]

Ok, congrats you found 3 examples. To be honest I didn't even read the entire thing, just went through it. So out of a 2,000 word resolution you found about 25 that dealt with human rights. Congratulations, that must mean that human rights was a good justification.

 

[No Limit]

Yep.

Polish Troops Find Sarin Warheads in Iraq, July 2004

Two Soldiers Treated after Sarin Attack

Now before you start spouting off how that is not enough to be "mass destruction" let me remind you asked for a SINGLE banned weapon.

From that site:

Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent, but it is not clear what period the weapons came from, the Defense Ministry said Thursday.

"There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all."

"Some of them are very corroded. They are probably not usable, but are dangerous to the local environment,"

Wow, Saddam is endangering the enviroment, I think Bush just found another justification for the war.

Lets just assume these had Serin in them and I am wrong. It still doesn't make your argument any stronger. In almost 2 years that we've been there we only found 2 possible serin warheads in the same area.

 

[No Limit]

Simple, look at all the resolutions in the links I have provided above. There was over a decade of deception. So we are supposed to trust Saddam after a decade of lies?

No, we were supposed to go and verify the intelligence we had, something that would have taken us less than a day in the example I posted. Why didn't Bush want the inspectors to check these out if he really believed those weapons were there? Again, it would have taken a couple hours at most.

 

[Bodacious]

This is exactly what the thread is about, the thread is called "The Case For War", Bush misleading the nation about the case for war has everything to do with it.

So you said you didn't say he was misleading and you didn't say he wasn't. Which is it? Was he misleading the American people or was he being honest? Simple question.

As long as you continue to make good points I will respond, but please, spare me the bullshit unlike yesterday.

If I wanted to talk about Bush misleading the people I would have put that somewhere in the title and supported evidence of my claim.

Want me to edit my title then? The Case For War: Barbra Boxer Running her mouth about all she never read about, but other senators read about WMDs being the only reason to go to war and why she and other democrats are wrong when they say the war was only started becuase of wmds.

 

[No Limit]

If I wanted to talk about Bush misleading the people I would have put that somewhere in the title and supported evidence of my claim.

Want me to edit my title then? The Case For War: Barbra Boxer Running her mouth about all she never read about, but other senators read about WMDs being the only reason to go to war and why she and other democrats are wrong when they say the war was only started becuase of wmds.

See, you are being an idiot again. I am going to ask you one more time to anwser a simple question, if you don't I am not responding to you anymore. BUSH MISLEADING AMERICANS ABOUT THE CASE FOR WAR HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A THREAD ABOUT THE CASE FOR WAR. Is that so f-cking hard to understand????????! And no, you can't change the thread title. That's like me starting a thread saying Bush likes Hitler, then someone calls me on my bullshit, and I say wait, I didn't really want to talk about that, I meant I want to talk about how some people say he likes Hitler.

 

[satch919]

You're not going to make anyone Pro-Bush by posting this, nor are we going to make you Anti-Bush. So with that in mind, why post it or continue arguing? Its not even worth debating anymore. People would never admit that they were wrong.

I think you've been spoonfed a bunch of lies and you ate it up. From what I've gathered, you're a Conservative and that bothers me. You're all Pro-life and against abortion because a fictitious man in the sky says its wrong or because a preist says its a sin. You're a crazy NeoCon who believes in a God that has as much reliablility as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

You think Im a tree hugging hippy Liberal. You believe that I don't support the troops. You think I want to let convicts out of prison. You think Im for giving poor people a free ride. I murder fetuses because I support abortion and the womens right to decide.

Those are just stereotypes of what you might think about me and what I might think about you. It doesn't do anyone any good to get to that lowly level though.

Plus, this subject has been beaten into the ground. The only use for posting this is for starting arguments and getting attention. Find something else or don't even bother posting this.

 

[Bodacious]

From that site:

Wow, Saddam is endangering the enviroment, I think Bush just found another justification for the war.

Lets just assume these had Serin in them and I am wrong. It still doesn't make your argument any stronger. In almost 2 years that we've been there we only found 2 possible serin warheads in the same area.

You asked for a SINGLE weapon.

I found you two.

 

[Bodacious]

See, you are being an idiot again. I am going to ask you one more time to anwser a simple question, if you don't I am not responding to you anymore. BUSH MISLEADING AMERICANS ABOUT THE CASE FOR WAR HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH A THREAD ABOUT THE CASE FOR WAR. Is that so f-cking hard to understand????????! And no, you can't change the thread title. That's like me starting a thread saying Bush likes Hitler, then someone calls me on my bullshit, and I say wait, I didn't really want to talk about that, I meant I want to talk about how some people say he likes Hitler.

But that is not the case.

They are two diffent subjects. How is that so hard to understand?

No one called me on bullshit. You made the assumtption I said Bush wasn't misleading.

 

[satch919]

You asked for a SINGLE weapon.

I found you two.

BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!

With that, im out.

 

[Bodacious]

To be honest I didn't even read the entire thing,

That has to be the best line of this whole discussion.

If you aren't educated how are you prepared to argue?

 

[Bodacious]

BUSH ALREADY ADMITTED TO NOT FINDING ANY WMDS!!!!!!
With that, im out.

Talk about taking quotes out of context.

Next up: Reading comprehension for biased liberals.

 

[burner69]

I just thought I would illustrate to you why we went to war. All of the left will say it was solely because of WMDs, as reaffirmed by Sen. Barbra Boxer in the questioning of Dr. Rice:

No, the war was not soley about WMDs, but it was certainley the focal point.

The fact that half the story during the build up to war was with good nature and based on fact, does not mean the whole thing was. The fact that we were lied to about many aspects means that, as a entireity, the reasoning we were given to go to war with Iraq was a lie.

I don't care if you think that or not. The only thing I care about, in reference to my post, is morons like B Boxer running around saying that WMD was the only reason, when it wasn't.

So can we only argue this one specific?

Besides, it really doesn't matter what the president says. Congress gave him the authority to go to war based on the resolution I posted above. The resolution clearly states the reason for war isnt' justa about WMDs.

Where did I say you couldn't argue against my post?

This ...thread is called "The Case For War", Bush misleading the nation about the case for war has everything to do with it.

If I wanted to talk about Bush misleading the people I would have put that somewhere in the title and supported evidence of my claim.

Want me to edit my title then? The Case For War: Barbra Boxer Running her mouth about all she never read about, but other senators read about WMDs being the only reason to go to war and why she and other democrats are wrong when they say the war was only started becuase of wmds.

So this thread is specifically designed to have a dig at Barbara Boxer, and raise no other points?

 

[CptStern]

WMD, Who said what:



Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002


Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002


If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002



We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003



Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003



We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003



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.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003



We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003



So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003


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.

George Bush March 18, 2003


We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003



Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003



There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003



I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003



One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003



Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003



I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003



We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003



We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003


I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003



I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003








For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

 

[Kommie]

Talk about taking quotes out of context.

Next up: Reading comprehension for biased liberals.

Jesus man the only person who needs reading comprehension around here is you. You hardly ever understand or even try to understand what someone is saying in there posts. Even when people dismiss your supposed "evidence" as false or incorrect with an accurate source you simply ignore it and go on as if they never even bothered. It isn't that your a conservative its simply that you are an idiot. I don't mind when say hapless or seinfeld posts something with a rightish feel (they can back it up and don't mind a debate), but you..... you are so blinded with your own biases and your own stupidity and ignorance it's just infuriating.

 

[Bodacious]

Jesus man the only person who needs reading comprehension around here is you. You hardly ever understand or even try to understand what someone is saying in there posts. Even when people dismiss your supposed "evidence" as false or incorrect with an accurate source you simply ignore it and go on as if they never even bothered. It isn't that your a conservative its simply that you are an idiot. I don't mind when say hapless or seinfeld posts something with a rightish feel (they can back it up and don't mind a debate), but you..... you are so blinded with your own biases and your own stupidity and ignorance it's just infuriating.

Riiiight...

Show me examples of where someone gave me evidence on a subject and I ignored it as if they never even bothered.

 

[Kommie]

Riiiight...

See you just proved my point, its crap like that. If someone makes a point you make some crass remark and act as though you totally disproved everything in the whole statement. even though I wasn't really making a point. I was just kind of reacting to your stupidity ....Christ
With that I am out, and off to the "ignore" feature I go.

 

[Bodacious]

This is funny, you say, "You hardly ever understand or even try to understand what someone is saying in there posts. "

When, seemingly you don't understand my posts, at least that is what I gather by you not responding to anything I have posted in this thread and by calling me an idiot with the only reason being is some misguided accusations, and then put me on "ignore".

Who is the one here being, by your description, an idiot?

Seeing as how you are posting this stuff, you are as guilty of your own accusations as I am.

 

[bliink]

Well, its decended into flamewar.
Closed.