al-Sadr to disarm his militia!!!!!!

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Dari

:laugh:. It's interesting how they never changed the "Iraq DENIAL AND DECEPTION" part.

you know, I thought the same damn thing and I had to doublecheck the website to make sure I wasn't on some lame ultra-lib hack site and this was some sort of sarcastic mock-up.

I guess the White House still has some fanboys out there (read PJ and TLC) who still need the "feel good" message/propoganda that Iraq was evil.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

?We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.?

~Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

There are plenty more where that came from...

I move to hereby nomintate this post as pwnage of the month.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

Dory? Is that you?

 

[NeoV]

worst post of the decade thus far, courtesy TechAZ

"I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression."

Is that because you were 10 years old at the time, or the fact that you reallly are that selective in your memory?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'll chime in also.

As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

Me either TechAZ. I knew the WMD thing was just a cover excuse. The real reason was to make an example out of Iraq as a warning to others in the Middle East. And I was cool with that too. Probably b/c I was across the street on 9/11 when it happened, saw everything live including the 2nd plane hitting, people jumping to their death while on fire, and remember being so filled with rage I wanted to lash out at the whole world.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: NeoV
worst post of the decade thus far, courtesy TechAZ

"I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression."

Is that because you were 10 years old at the time, or the fact that you reallly are that selective in your memory?

I was 21 at the time, thanks for assuming though. I give a sincere opinion on how I perceived things at the time and this is the best you can come up with? There were many many speeches about justifications for the war. I can dig up countless quotes from Dems supporting Bush AND pre-Bush era quotes saying Iraq was a threat to the world and was actively looking for/had WMD's.

So, no I wasn't 10 years old....but thanks for playing the "retard card".

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

Me either TechAZ. I knew the WMD thing was just a cover excuse. The real reason was to make an example out of Iraq as a warning to others in the Middle East. And I was cool with that too. Probably b/c I was across the street on 9/11 when it happened, saw everything live including the 2nd plane hitting, people jumping to their death while on fire, and remember being so filled with rage I wanted to lash out at the whole world.

Some warning. Iran is getting the bomb. The gulf states are hundreds of billions of dollars richer. Al Qaeda is now an ideology. You think things worked out well?

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

?We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.?

~Ari Fleischer, April 10, 2003

There are plenty more where that came from...

I move to hereby nomintate this post as pwnage of the month.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... 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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

Me either TechAZ. I knew the WMD thing was just a cover excuse. The real reason was to make an example out of Iraq as a warning to others in the Middle East. And I was cool with that too. Probably b/c I was across the street on 9/11 when it happened, saw everything live including the 2nd plane hitting, people jumping to their death while on fire, and remember being so filled with rage I wanted to lash out at the whole world.

Great, congratulations. Look where rage got the US.TechAZThank you for the quotes. If you're being contrite and furthering the idea it was about WMD, you've done a great job. Or are you trying to indicate that others, not just Bush, thought Iraq had WMD, too? That merely means they are just as stupid, although to their defense they didn't start a war over it. What ARE you getting at?

The fact is, WMD was the overarching issue of the war. WMD wasn't there. The basis for the war never existed.

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous
exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

Me either TechAZ. I knew the WMD thing was just a cover excuse. The real reason was to make an example out of Iraq as a warning to others in the Middle East. And I was cool with that too. Probably b/c I was across the street on 9/11 when it happened, saw everything live including the 2nd plane hitting, people jumping to their death while on fire, and remember being so filled with rage I wanted to lash out at the whole world.

Great, congratulations. Look where rage got the US.TechAZThank you for the quotes. If you're being contrite and furthering the idea it was about WMD, you've done a great job. Or are you trying to indicate that others, not just Bush, thought Iraq had WMD, too? That merely means they are just as stupid, although to their defense they didn't start a war over it. What ARE you getting at?

The fact is, WMD was the overarching issue of the war. WMD wasn't there. The basis for the war never existed.

What am I getting at? This doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out. Let is soak in for a few minutes before replying next time.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
What am I getting at? This doesn't require Sherlock Holmes to figure out. Let is soak in for a few minutes before replying next time.

Are you inebriated? Your posts make no sense, I think you actually are arguing with yourself in this thread, first about how it wasn't about WMD and then endless quotes about people's fears about Iraq's WMD. I suppose when my kids bang on pots and pans they hear a song in there, too, but all I get is noise.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: Thump553
PJ:
Frankly, any knowledgeable objective observer would put this into the "that's interesting, let's see what really happens" category-at best.

Moqtada al-Sadr has pulled this stunt of declaring a truce, disarming, etc. at least a half dozen times in the past. He uses the breaks to rebuild his military and political clout and comes back twice as strong.

It is also highly questionable whether Moqtada al-Sadr has control over much of the Mahdi Army at this point. The last several times we had hot battles with the Mahdi Army he declared truces, which were pretty much ignored by his own side.

^^THIS^^

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the war was about WMD and there were no WMD then there was no war right? 😕

If I stab you for sleeping with my wife and I'm not married then you're still alive right?

How you could think to write something so ill-conceived is a mystery... Why you would post it on the internet is beyond me... But the fact that after you've been called on it multiple times you still haven't edited it out of your post is so mind-boggling that I'm literally recoiling in horror at the stupidity on display before me. You may be many things, but stupid has never been one of them.

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'm curious what rationale you remember being used to justify the war. I remember the concerns about WMDs; the mobile weapons labs (that we had radar images of), the yellow cake from Niger, the aluminum tubes for rockets... What rationale do you remember? Liberating the Iraqi people? And keep in mind, the President and his administration didn't just have to convince the American people, they had to convince (an admittedly friendly) Congress. Do you think that they just went in front of Congress with "liberate these people"?

What do you remember?

 

[TechAZ]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If the war was about WMD and there were no WMD then there was no war right? 😕

If I stab you for sleeping with my wife and I'm not married then you're still alive right?

How you could think to write something so ill-conceived is a mystery... Why you would post it on the internet is beyond me... But the fact that after you've been called on it multiple times you still haven't edited it out of your post is so mind-boggling that I'm literally recoiling in horror at the stupidity on display before me. You may be many things, but stupid has never been one of them.

Originally posted by: TechAZ
I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'm curious what rationale you remember being used to justify the war. I remember the concerns about WMDs; the mobile weapons labs (that we had radar images of), the yellow cake from Niger, the aluminum tubes for rockets... What rationale do you remember? Liberating the Iraqi people? And keep in mind, the President and his administration didn't just have to convince the American people, they had to convince (an admittedly friendly) Congress. Do you think that they just went in front of Congress with "liberate these people"?

What do you remember?

The reasons that soaked into my head was that Saddam was a crazy dictator who had a history of using terroristic violence against people, had used WMD in the past, and who hated the US/Israel. That Saddam would be a likely candidate with actual power to make deals with terrorists who needed him to carry out deadly attacks upon the US and allies.

That is pretty much the exact thing that stuck with me, I remember hearing about claims about Iraq actively manufactoring WMD's and looking for nukes but in my head it was the above paragraph that stuck out in my head.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wonder if he's not a great man,

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: alchemize
As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

^ Bingo!

In the build up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alchemize
As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

^ Bingo!

In the biuld up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

Fern

The reason for that was it was the only way to get the support Bush needed to invade Iraq. If he had just said it was to liberate the Iraqi's the nation would have given him the big FU .

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alchemize
As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

^ Bingo!

In the biuld up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

Fern

The reason for that was it was the only way to get the support Bush needed to invade Iraq. If he had just said it was to liberate the Iraqi's the nation would have given him the big FU .

Add in the former GWB&Co administration officials who have stated 'evidence' of the WMD threat was carefully crafted to prove their case. As Fletcher from The Outlaw Josey Wales said, 'Don't piss down my back and tell me it's rainin''.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't think 'mushroom clouds' 'WMD' 'kicked out inspectors' and obtuse connections to 9/11 will be forgotten quite like the incubator babies in 1990.

And why would a Shia member of the Mahdi army voluntarily disarm when we pay 90,000 Sunnis $300 a month and give them free guns and ammo?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: alchemize
As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

^ Bingo!

In the build up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

Fern

Indeed, all the other reasons put together couldn't pique either sides interests enough to commit to authorizing the use of force. A silver bullet solution needs a big enough problem at which to fire at.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
In the biuld up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

The reason for that was it was the only way to get the support Bush needed to invade Iraq. If he had just said it was to liberate the Iraqi's the nation would have given him the big FU .

Not to mention it ran exactly opposite Bush's earlier claim that the US was not going to be involved in nation building.

Many reasons were tossed around in the days leading up to the war, but the one that was really hammered was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The only way Saddam could be a threat, even just to other nations in the Middle East, let alone to the United States, was via WMDs. Hence all the stories about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc. It was in the Fall of 2003 when the administration couldn't find any WMDs six months after the fall of Baghdad that other justifications for the war really started in earnest (including liberating the Iraqi people, liberating the Iraqi women, bringing democracy, Al Qaeda and the war on terror, etc.). This was also when radical lefties started trumpeting the "War for Oil" rallying cry with "See? We told you they did it for the oil!"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'll chime in also.

As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

I would pretty much agree with what you said.

I am sure that if we had found WMD the left would be running around screaming "you said that war was to establish a working Democracy and that hasn't happen so the war is a failure!!!!"

 

[ProfJohn]

The "official" reason for going to war as voted on by Congress

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas 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 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 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.

BTW 40% of Democrat house members and %60 of Democrat Senators voted for the bill.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'll chime in also.

As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

I would pretty much agree with what you said.

I am sure that if we had found WMD the left would be running around screaming "you said that war was to establish a working Democracy and that hasn't happen so the war is a failure!!!!"

You can speculate all you want but the harsh reality is that Bush has been an historic failure and you slavishly support him.