Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[U2Edge]

1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.

That is not a response to my question. "Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply?"

Do you wish to try again? Do you know what giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply means?

1441 already states that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations. The resolution itself is saying that SADDAM IS IN VIOLATION of it.

Nothing within the body of the resolution 1441 says that Hans Blix or any other inspector is to be given months on end to investigate worthless claims in order to stall an invasion and regime removal they do not want to happen. Hans Blix did not really care what Saddam did or did not have, he only cared about attempting to prevent the United States and other member states from removing the problem, which in this case was SADDAM.

Its baffling the lengths that people will go to too defend a dishonest mass murderer like SADDAM!

 

[U2Edge]

1441 stated that Saddam was already in violation of multiple UN security council resolutions as well as the Gulf War Ceacefire.

"Who declared Saddam Hussein to be in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 which granted Iraq a final opportunity to comply?"

Do not feel bad if you refuse to answer that simple question. No "Iraq-Invader enthusiast/aficionado" can field an answer because the answer is not good. This will be another for the record from the fading remnants of the "Bush-Lied" deniers.

The answer is simple. 1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself. It authorizes the use of military force to bring SADDAM into compliance. Resolutions 678 and 687 are reaffirmed in the body of resolution 1441.

 

[U2Edge]

Blah blah blah, blame everyone else except for the President and his puppeteers.

Bush lied, Cheney lied, Rumsfeld lied, Wolfowitz lied, Rice lied, they all lied, declassified Bush administration documents prove it. Intelligence was fixed around the policy. They made shit up to scare everyone into accepting an invasion of Iraq that could not have been justified otherwise.

DECLASSIFIED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS. Read them and learn.

Well, if you could prove such a case, you'd be a rich man and would have succeeded in preventing George Bush from being re-elected. Since neither is true and the BUSH LIED is just a careless liberal catch phrase, this is much ado about nothing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself. It authorizes the use of military force to bring SADDAM into compliance.

Where does it say that? 1441 is a final opportunity through peaceful inspections for Iraq to come into compliance with no deadline.

Where do you see a deadline? Russia voted for 1441 because it did not automatically trigger the use of force. The UNSC was to reconvene in order to authorize military force in the event that Saddam Hussein failed to take this final opportunity to comply.

Bush attempted to set a deadline on March 7, 2003 when he and three other nations sent a draft resolution to the UNSC Council for a vote. It was posted earlier. How do you explain that?

Here is that language used in the draft resolution that absolutely destroys your claims.

Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution.

The Security Council - Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441(2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-i...r03-en-rev.pdf

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The poll asked if Americans were willing to send troops back to the Persian Gulf to invade Iraq and remove him from power. 52% said yes. This question was asked in again in the last months of 2002 and early 2003 and the poll numbers increased in support over what they had been in 2001.

Not Gallup at the end of February 2003. You are wrong.

As you may know, the U.S., Great Britain, and Spain plan to submit a resolution to the United Nations that says that Iraq is in serious violation of prior U.N. resolutions that required Iraq to disarm. Do you think the United States should invade Iraq with ground troops – [ROTATED: only if the U.N. approves this new resolution, even if the U.N. does not approve this new resolution], or do you think the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all?


Only if U.N. approves {40%}
Even if U.N. does not approve {38%}
Should not send troops at all {19%}
No opinion {3%}

2003 Feb 24-26

40%
38
19
3

Public Support for Invasion of Iraq Holds Steady

Only 38% approved sending in ground troops and invading Iraq without UN approval. The UN did not approve the resolution mentioned in the question.

The majority of Americans changed when the inspections started in December 2002 to 'go to war only with UN approval.'

I am posting facts from the polling company you cited.

And here's a fact that most people know:

The UN did not approve of the US and UK invasion of Iraq.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again, 1441 noted that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN security Council resolutions and Saddam did nothing to comply with any of the resolutions in between the passage of 1441 and the start of the ground invasion in March 2003.

Why do you make such an absurd, unsubstantiated claim that SH 'did nothing' to take his 'final opportunity' to comply that was granted to him by UNSC Resolution 1441? Your defense of the ground invasion into Iraq in March 2003 is a hodgepodge of myth and error.

SH offered in December 2002 to let US intelligence agents and US military WMD experts come into Iraq peacefully and search for WMD evidence of existence first hand. That is not 'doing nothing'. Letting the UN inspecters and cooperating proactively on substance prior to the invasion is not 'doing nothing' either.

 

[Camp]

Again, 1441 noted that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN security Council resolutions and Saddam did nothing to comply with any of the resolutions in between the passage of 1441 and the start of the ground invasion in March 2003.

Why do you make such an absurd, unsubstantiated claim that SH 'did nothing' to take his 'final opportunity' to comply that was granted to him by UNSC Resolution 1441? Your defense of the ground invasion into Iraq in March 2003 is a hodgepodge of myth and error.

SH offered in December 2002 to let US intelligence agents and US military WMD experts come into Iraq peacefully and search for WMD evidence of existence first hand. That is not 'doing nothing'. Letting the UN inspecters and cooperating proactively on substance prior to the invasion is not 'doing nothing' either.

The argument, as I have said previously, always degenerates into nonsense. The deniers eventually end up arguing the old war debates that were used leading up to the war, minus the lies. They basically concede that the lies were made, but insist that the lies didn't really mean anything of substance because we had lots of other good reasons to invade Iraq without those lies, so the lies can be ignored. It comes down to this ridiculous debate about whether the nation would go to war without the lies.

 

[Contumacious]

Again, 1441 noted that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN security Council resolutions and Saddam did nothing to comply with any of the resolutions in between the passage of 1441 and the start of the ground invasion in March 2003.

Why do you make such an absurd, unsubstantiated claim that SH 'did nothing' to take his 'final opportunity' to comply that was granted to him by UNSC Resolution 1441? Your defense of the ground invasion into Iraq in March 2003 is a hodgepodge of myth and error.

SH offered in December 2002 to let US intelligence agents and US military WMD experts come into Iraq peacefully and search for WMD evidence of existence first hand. That is not 'doing nothing'. Letting the UN inspecters and cooperating proactively on substance prior to the invasion is not 'doing nothing' either.

The argument, as I have said previously, always degenerates into nonsense. The deniers eventually end up arguing the old war debates that were used leading up to the war, minus the lies. They basically concede that the lies were made, but insist that the lies didn't really mean anything of substance because we had lots of other good reasons to invade Iraq without those lies, so the lies can be ignored. It comes down to this ridiculous debate about whether the nation would go to war without the lies.

Yes, indeed we had lots of other good reasons

War profiteers KBR and Halliburton made gazillions

The Zionuts future was a little more secured

Bush II had a chance to create a fundamentalist shiite stronghold;

Did I miss anything?.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

All Bush did was repeat what these two leading Democrats said.

The decision to subvert and end UN inspections in favor of war originated from Bush's mind and from no one else. You need to take responsibility for the "Decider's" decision and cease blaming others if you choose to defend that godawful decision.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And if you claim Bush lied then your also claimed a bunch of Democrats also lied who said the same damn thing.

That is false. I have presented a case that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 that he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.

No Democrat made the claim that they had that specific high degree of intelligence, that did not exist one week earlier, when Bush revealed within the March 7, 2003 draft resolution that was presented to the UNSC.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Democrats also lied then because they were all saying the same thing during the Clinton administration and before the invasion. No rewriting history today. I was there.

What do you mean when you say "before the invasion"?

The last 15 days before the invasion Bush said things that no one else said. I was paying attention and am focused on the last ten days before the invasion. Your claim is quite general and lacks specificity.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The argument, as I have said previously, always degenerates into nonsense. The deniers eventually end up arguing the old war debates that were used leading up to the war, minus the lies. They basically concede that the lies were made, but insist that the lies didn't really mean anything of substance because we had lots of other good reasons to invade Iraq without those lies, so the lies can be ignored. It comes down to this ridiculous debate about whether the nation would go to war without the lies.

The one's I've engaged here are full blown attempting to deny that Bush lied at all. First things first. I have presented a solid case that proves that Bush actually did in fact lie on March 17, 2003. The case that the lie can be ignored is a separate argument that invasion supporters will lose as well if sticking to all known facts and moral reasoning and abiding by norms of international law are religiously and necessarily imposed on the discussion.

Watch which side does not cite facts.

 

[U2Edge]

1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself. It authorizes the use of military force to bring SADDAM into compliance.

Where does it say that? 1441 is a final opportunity through peaceful inspections for Iraq to come into compliance with no deadline.

Where do you see a deadline? Russia voted for 1441 because it did not automatically trigger the use of force. The UNSC was to reconvene in order to authorize military force in the event that Saddam Hussein failed to take this final opportunity to comply.

Bush attempted to set a deadline on March 7, 2003 when he and three other nations sent a draft resolution to the UNSC Council for a vote. It was posted earlier. How do you explain that?

Here is that language used in the draft resolution that absolutely destroys your claims.

Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America: draft resolution.

The Security Council - Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the Council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441(2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items;

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-i...r03-en-rev.pdf

It says that within the body of resolution 1441, that Iraq is in material breech of its obligations. It also reaffirms resolutions 678 and 687 which authorize the use of military force to bring Iraq into compliance.

A deadline is not stated because Iraq was already required to be in compliance or face military action which they had faced EVERY YEAR since 1991.

Russia gave the same excuse for voting for the resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War the use of military force against Iraq since then for its violations of the Ceasefire and other resolutions. Its a play on the language which is bullshit. Under such a definition, the first Gulf War did not receive UN backing either.

The UN did not need to reconvene for military force to be used or authorized. Military force was already authorized back in 1990 under 678 which also applied to all subsequent resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules against Iraq. Military action is already being taken and it is authorized by resolution 678. 1441 was simply restating the case. But it was not necessary to legally authorize military action since that had already been authorized over a decade ago.

The draft resolution was simply an attempt to get more international support. Its not an example of what the administration had or did not have the legal right to do under international law. From a purely legal standpoint, resolution 678 is the only resolution needed to authorize military force against Iraq for its non-compliance. That was passed over a decade ago. 1441 which was passed and other attempts at another resolution were just attempts to garner more international support. They were not required from legal standpoint.

 

[Kosh]

OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Q&A: Oil-for-food scandal

 

[U2Edge]

The poll asked if Americans were willing to send troops back to the Persian Gulf to invade Iraq and remove him from power. 52% said yes. This question was asked in again in the last months of 2002 and early 2003 and the poll numbers increased in support over what they had been in 2001.

Not Gallup at the end of February 2003. You are wrong.

As you may know, the U.S., Great Britain, and Spain plan to submit a resolution to the United Nations that says that Iraq is in serious violation of prior U.N. resolutions that required Iraq to disarm. Do you think the United States should invade Iraq with ground troops – [ROTATED: only if the U.N. approves this new resolution, even if the U.N. does not approve this new resolution], or do you think the United States should not send ground troops to Iraq at all?


Only if U.N. approves {40%}
Even if U.N. does not approve {38%}
Should not send troops at all {19%}
No opinion {3%}

2003 Feb 24-26

40%
38
19
3

Public Support for Invasion of Iraq Holds Steady

Only 38% approved sending in ground troops and invading Iraq without UN approval. The UN did not approve the resolution mentioned in the question.

The majority of Americans changed when the inspections started in December 2002 to 'go to war only with UN approval.'

I am posting facts from the polling company you cited.

And here's a fact that most people know:

The UN did not approve of the US and UK invasion of Iraq.

There are other more important gallup polls that contradict that individual one. The Iraq war was overwhelmingly approved by the US congress as well as the majority of polls when the invasion was launched.

Then, In November 2004, The American people re-elected Bush to four more years in office.

The UN approved multiple resolutions against Iraq including the use of force against Iraq if it was in material breech of its obligations or the Gulf War Ceacefire. These resolutions were passed a decade before the ground invasion that removed Saddam from power.

In addition, in June 2003, The United Nations approved resolution 1483 which authorized the coalition occupation of Iraq. Why would the United Nations pass a resolution approving the occupation of Iraq by coalition forces if it did not approve the invasion which resulted in the occupation?

1. There was never an attempt by anyone to draft a resolution condemning the ground invasion in 2003.

2. There was never an attempt at passing a resolution calling for the coalition forces to immediately withdraw from Iraq when the invasion started.

3. There was not even an attempt at the above two for a resolution in the general assembly which would have been non-binding by symbolic none the less.

In both cases of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there were attempts at resolutions in the security council and general assembly to condemn the invasions and call for an immediate withdrawal.

In the case of the 2003 ground invasion of Iraq though, three months later, the UN passes resolution 1483 approving the occupation!

SO YES, THE UN DID INDEED APPROVE OF THE INVASION OF IRAQ AND EVEN HAD A SEPERATE RESOLUTIOIN APPROVING THE OCCUPATION!

 

[U2Edge]

Again, 1441 noted that Saddam was in violation of multiple UN security Council resolutions and Saddam did nothing to comply with any of the resolutions in between the passage of 1441 and the start of the ground invasion in March 2003.

Why do you make such an absurd, unsubstantiated claim that SH 'did nothing' to take his 'final opportunity' to comply that was granted to him by UNSC Resolution 1441? Your defense of the ground invasion into Iraq in March 2003 is a hodgepodge of myth and error.

SH offered in December 2002 to let US intelligence agents and US military WMD experts come into Iraq peacefully and search for WMD evidence of existence first hand. That is not 'doing nothing'. Letting the UN inspecters and cooperating proactively on substance prior to the invasion is not 'doing nothing' either.

Unless it does something to resolve the outstanding issues and problems, it is NOTHING. It is CHEAT AND RETREAT, Saddam's strategy with UN inspectors from the mid to late 1990s. Being allowed to search is something the international community already has the right to do giving Saddam's prior actions. So Saddam letting the inspectors back in is not doing something. The Inspectors were not supposed to be barred from any inspections let alone being barred from the country in the first place.

 

[U2Edge]

All Bush did was repeat what these two leading Democrats said.

The decision to subvert and end UN inspections in favor of war originated from Bush's mind and from no one else. You need to take responsibility for the "Decider's" decision and cease blaming others if you choose to defend that godawful decision.

Bush already had the authority to launch a ground invasion was bombing Iraq in the summer and Fall of 2002. Again, the United States and other member states of the UN already had the authorization they needed for military force and were using it. Bush sent the inspectors in while restating the fact that Iraq was in material breech and the international community had the authority to use military force to bring him into compliance.

 

[U2Edge]

And if you claim Bush lied then your also claimed a bunch of Democrats also lied who said the same damn thing.

That is false. I have presented a case that Bush lied on March 17, 2003 that he claimed to have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors.

No Democrat made the claim that they had that specific high degree of intelligence, that did not exist one week earlier, when Bush revealed within the March 7, 2003 draft resolution that was presented to the UNSC.

Its not a lie that the United States and other intelligence agencies around the world had intelligence that Saddam had WMD. That's a fact. After the invasion and removal of Saddam, this intelligence proved to be inaccurate. But no one lied under any circumstances.

 

[The T]

All Bush did was repeat what these two leading Democrats said.

The decision to subvert and end UN inspections in favor of war originated from Bush's mind and from no one else. You need to take responsibility for the "Decider's" decision and cease blaming others if you choose to defend that godawful decision.

Bush already had the authority to launch a ground invasion was bombing Iraq in the summer and Fall of 2002. Again, the United States and other member states of the UN already had the authorization they needed for military force and were using it. Bush sent the inspectors in while restating the fact that Iraq was in material breech and the international community had the authority to use military force to bring him into compliance.

These idiots will continue to IGNORE what their own Statists said, and voted FOR......they would rather forget about it and REWRITE history and the TRUTH. Truth is their BANE.

 

[U2Edge]

The argument, as I have said previously, always degenerates into nonsense. The deniers eventually end up arguing the old war debates that were used leading up to the war, minus the lies. They basically concede that the lies were made, but insist that the lies didn't really mean anything of substance because we had lots of other good reasons to invade Iraq without those lies, so the lies can be ignored. It comes down to this ridiculous debate about whether the nation would go to war without the lies.

The one's I've engaged here are full blown attempting to deny that Bush lied at all. First things first. I have presented a solid case that proves that Bush actually did in fact lie on March 17, 2003. The case that the lie can be ignored is a separate argument that invasion supporters will lose as well if sticking to all known facts and moral reasoning and abiding by norms of international law are religiously and necessarily imposed on the discussion.

Watch which side does not cite facts.

You have a mistaken opinion that Bush lied. No one has any factual proof that anyone in the Bush Administration lied about anything. If they did, then the other side would have the political GOLD they would need to start impeachment hearings and finally removal from office. None of that occurred despite the desire among many because the legal proof does not exist.