So hey, why don't we paint a plane UN colors and see if that will

[gerryhatrick]

New documentation, a FIRST HAND account of Bush and Blair meeting on Jan. 31, 2005 details Bush's unshakable determination to go to war. It was decided, as all the lefty kooks have been claiming, and here's the proof.

Regardless of what weapons inspectors found, OR of the 2nd resolution happening....he was doin' it!

Not only that, but he floated the idea of painting a spy plane UN colors to try and draw fire which would have given him the excuse for war. That and assasination of Saddam.

Hey KK, this is the guy in which you have full confidence has a master plan for the Mid-East that no lesser person (like a US soldier) can imagine. He's the visionary.

What an embarassment for the USA.

[KrustyKidd]

Regardless of what weapons inspectors found, OR of the 2nd resolution happening....he was doin' it!

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq.

Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by US President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could.

[gerryhatrick]

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq.

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war?

Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant.

[KrustyKidd]

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq.

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war?

Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant.

It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could.

I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply.

Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted..

Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha.

[Montgomery Burns]

The Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution passed Congress and was signed into law on October 16, 2002. You might want to read it. It's a short 23 clause resolution.

It's being reported that this confidential British memo was written after Blair visited Bush on January 31, 2003.

What's your point?

[KrustyKidd]

His point is that if Bush knew that he was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what if possible, then he lied to the American people when he stated that war would be an action of the last resort.

And to him, that makes hime happy because it means there is an oppoortunity for Bush to be discredited or even in a fantasy world - impeached.

What he discounts is that Saddam was as predictable as a Musillini run train and that the administration knew he could never come clean even if he wanted to. Hence, it was a virtual given that the resolutions would be breached. And, if not with WMDs, it could and more than likely have been with the ecological reparations, POW returns, repatriation of foreign nationals, war reparations etc. Hence, when none of those had even been acted on in over ten years, one can figure without using a calculator that given that they take years to complete if they are even started at all that he would be in breach of something.

Lo and behold, in the two months that Iraq actually got serious they turned in a document that Blix himself called 'disappointing' containing fake documents and then even testified that the actions by Iraq were not 'immediate and unconditional' which BTW were the exact terms 687 said that Iraq must be in order to be in compliance with 1441 which reiterated the authority that the US and the coalition had to take whatever action was necessary to get Iraq to comply.

It's the stuff left wing dreams are made of is what the point is Monty. Same crowd that are angry for the US invasion killing Iraqs to the tune of thirty thousand while saving on average five hundred thousand from Saddam and his adventures. Very humanistic they try to portray themselves as they have a belief that by having the US leave Iraq as it is comming together, they now wish to have the US leave and watch a further two hundred fifty thousand die by disease and trauma. Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity.

Nothing to worry about, go back to Kojack.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't recall Bush telling the American people that war was a last resort. To me, it looked like there was no doubt that the US was going to overthrow Saddam. The Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (October 2002) clearly stated that if Saddam did not abide by the UN resolutions, the President had the authorization to use military force against Iraq. Saddam was defiant to the end. Game over.

I realize that Colin Powell went back to the UN one more time, but Bush did that as a favor to Tony Blair, whose Labor Party was pressuring him to try the UN one more time. Unless Saddam capitulated, I was always under the impression that war was inevitable--especially after the devasting 9-11 attacks. The Bush Doctrine made it clear to me that Bush meant business.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't recall Bush telling the American people that war was a last resort.

At an earlier press conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, Mr. Bush said the United States was prepared to lead a "coalition of the willing" if Iraq refuses to abandon its weapons programs but also repeated previous statements that he considers war a last resort.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html

And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html

Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event.

If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list.

[Black Dog]

Same crowd that are angry for the US invasion killing Iraqs to the tune of thirty thousand while saving on average five hundred thousand from Saddam and his adventures.

But everyone knows that the invasion actually cost 10 BILLION Iraqi lives. See: I can make up numbers too.

Very humanistic they try to portray themselves as they have a belief that by having the US leave Iraq as it is comming together, they now wish to have the US leave and watch a further two hundred fifty thousand die by disease and trauma.

Iraq is "coming together"? Better tell the Iraqis.

Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity.

Strawman.

[KrustyKidd]

But everyone knows that the invasion actually cost 10 BILLION Iraqi lives. See: I can make up numbers too.

Generally accepted figure is thirty thousand over a three year period. Iraqi Body Count gives that as well as most credible humanistic organizations. The accepted figure of those killed by Saddam is between two and three hundred thousand over a twenty year period not counting lives lost during the war with Iran or Kuwait.

The figures given (thirty thousand) include those killed by Iraqi insurgents and foreign Jihadists hence it would be fair to include those killed by Iranians during the war with Iraq so, five hundred thousand is actually a low figure. Make it seven or even eight. In any case, the US has saved lives.

Iraq is "coming together"? Better tell the Iraqis.

They know already. At least 65% of them do as they participated in the process.

Strawman.

Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity.

Well, Saddam got twelve years of opportunity, why is it the Iraqis themselves only get three? To say sanctions and resolutions were working is wrong as they were not yet the Iraqis, with US help, have come together in a political process with a greater percentage of the population voting under threat of death than those who do in most democratic countries.

So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess?

It just seems so hypocritical.

[Black Dog]

So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess?

Uh...if Iraqis are so into the political process, then "our" involvement would appear to be uneccesary. If the Iraqi democratic process is so dependent on outside help, well, it can scarcely be said to have made much progress, regardles sof how many people went to the polls.

[KrustyKidd]

Uh...if Iraqis are so into the political process, then "our" involvement would appear to be uneccesary. If the Iraqi democratic process is so dependent on outside help, well, it can scarcely be said to have made much progress, regardles sof how many people went to the polls.

There are a few people who are causing the trouble and, very effectively, this is by no means the majority. Suicide bombers can create much agitation, suspicion, physical damage and weaken even a strong government and can actually help topple a weak one. It is no novel idea that they would place any new government in a weak position. Hence, they need help, even if progress has been made.

So, you didn't answer

So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess?

[Black Dog]

I didn't answer because I don't accept your premise that anti-war folks "give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political process". What are help are we suppossed to be giving them that we aren't now?

So what "help" are we giving them? And, if our help is so valuable, why is Iraq in the state it's in (from a purely political perspective)?

[KrustyKidd]

So what "help" are we giving them?

Supporting and training Iraqi military units and conducting patrols and operations against insurgents and Jihadists.

And, if our help is so valuable, why is Iraq in the state it's in (from a purely political perspective)?

You mean the elections? Or the concessions made by all factions in the political process or rather, did you mean the acceptence by Iran to hold historic negotiations with the US over Iraq as they too, understand that not being part of the political process could weaken their position?

Edit:

I didn't answer because I don't accept your premise that anti-war folks "give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political process". What are help are we suppossed to be giving them that we aren't now?

None, just stop working agianst the situation by giving Jihadists and insurgents the hope they use to keep going, believing that if they place enough pressure, the US will fold under the anti war folks wishes. In short, just stop calling out for the US to leave and afford the Iraqis the same time generousity the UN gave Saddam - a decade.

[JerrySeinfeld]

New documentation, a FIRST HAND account of Bush and Blair meeting on Jan. 31, 2005 details Bush's unshakable determination to go to war. It was decided, as all the lefty kooks have been claiming, and here's the proof.

Regardless of what weapons inspectors found, OR of the 2nd resolution happening....he was doin' it!

Not only that, but he floated the idea of painting a spy plane UN colors to try and draw fire which would have given him the excuse for war. That and assasination of Saddam.

Hey KK, this is the guy in which you have full confidence has a master plan for the Mid-East that no lesser person (like a US soldier) can imagine. He's the visionary.

What an embarassment for the USA.

The US is kicking butt in the middle east and you better get used to it.

Last thing we need is a "made in canada" plan.

We'd all be drowning in UN bullshit while the muslims plan the liquidation of the jewish state and the conquer of the world.

[Black Dog]

None, just stop working agianst the situation by giving Jihadists and insurgents the hope they use to keep going, believing that if they place enough pressure, the US will fold under the anti war folks wishes. In short, just stop calling out for the US to leave and afford the Iraqis the same time generousity the UN gave Saddam - a decade.

Unless you have any evidence that oppossition to the war is giving "Jihadists and insurgents the hope they use to keep going", your statement means absolutely squat. Stop with the strawmen.

Also: i don't see how asking for the U.S. to leave is denying Iraqis the time to build a democracy. the assumptions behind such a statement are staggering.

Supporting and training Iraqi military units and conducting patrols and operations against insurgents and Jihadists.

And is this having an affect? Why are the insurgents averaging more attacks now than at the same time last year (when ol' Dick said they were in their "last throes"?)

Frankly, I don't beleive the U.S. prescence is making any difference in the security situation. It may even be making things worse.

You mean the elections? Or the concessions made by all factions in the political process or rather, did you mean the acceptence by Iran to hold historic negotiations with the US over Iraq as they too, understand that not being part of the political process could weaken their position?

I mean the fact that there is no government to speak of in Iraq at the moment. (Are you also aware that Iraqi officials including Jalal Talabani have rejected the Iran/U.S. talks?)

[GostHacked]

Well it seems like the US does not want Jafaari as an Iraqi PM, eventhough he was democtaticly elected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4855210.stm

The US ambassador to Iraq has told Shia leaders that the US government does not want Ibrahim Jaafari to remain prime minister, senior Shia politicians say.

Why is that??

OK he was choosen by the democraticly elected ruling party. But that is besides the point, I recall how upset the WhiteHouse was when Jafaari was elected. They wanted Allawi as PM. But I guess you can't have it your way all the time.

[Riverwind]

OK he was choosen by the democraticly elected ruling party. But that is besides the point, I recall how upset the WhiteHouse was when Jafaari was elected. They wanted Allawi as PM. But I guess you can't have it your way all the time.

I wonder if Bush is having second thoughts about this 'democracy' business ;-)

[GostHacked]

OK he was choosen by the democraticly elected ruling party. But that is besides the point, I recall how upset the WhiteHouse was when Jafaari was elected. They wanted Allawi as PM. But I guess you can't have it your way all the time.

I wonder if Bush is having second thoughts about this 'democracy' business ;-)

He really needed another 'Karzai : The Oil Czar'. to help in Iraq. I guess new elections are in order then?

[Montgomery Burns]

Well it seems like the US does not want Jafaari as an Iraqi PM, eventhough he was democtaticly elected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4855210.stm

The US ambassador to Iraq has told Shia leaders that the US government does not want Ibrahim Jaafari to remain prime minister, senior Shia politicians say.

Why is that??

OK he was choosen by the democraticly elected ruling party. But that is besides the point, I recall how upset the WhiteHouse was when Jafaari was elected. They wanted Allawi as PM. But I guess you can't have it your way all the time.

I'm sure it was an honest mistake on GH's part when he "forgot" to include this from his link:

The US embassy in Baghdad confirmed Mr Khalilzad had met Mr Hakim on Saturday, but denied he had made such a demand.

"Iraq's democratically-elected Council of Representatives has the mandate of affirming a prime ministerial nomination," an embassy spokeswoman said.

"We will not intervene with this process."

I know it was a honest mistake because leftists always give the USA the benefit of the doubt. Right?

[KrustyKidd]

'Black Dog'Unless you have any evidence that oppossition to the war is giving "Jihadists and insurgents the hope they use to keep going", your statement means absolutely squat. Stop with the strawmen.

First one I found, lots more

"Your leaders responded to the initiative of Sheikh Osama, may God protect him, by saying they don't negotiate with terrorists and that they are winning the war on terror. I tell them: You liars, greedy war mongers, who is pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan? Us or you? Whose soldiers are committing suicide because of despair? Us or you?"

Obviously not talking to Bush.

In this and other messages, al Qaeda -- which recognizes the likelihood of a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq later this year -- is attempting to set the stage to project its own victory. However, this stance seems to be predicated on the assumption that the insurgents -- jihadists as well as Sunni nationalists -- will still be in place after the drawdown, and neither al-Zawahiri nor bin Laden seem to have figured in the likelihood that 40,000 U.S. troops would remain in-country even after the drawdown. That said, the endgame in this case is about shaping perceptions -- not necessarily bringing about an actual jihadist victory.

Yes, they're up to speed of course.

Much as bin Laden did in his own recent release, al-Zawahiri touches on the morale of the American public and apparently tries to inflame anti-war sentiment, referring to President George W. Bush as the "Butcher of Washington" and "a curse on your own nation." Addressing the American people directly, he adds, "Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures." He says, "If the Pentagon calls to tell you that your son is coming home in a coffin, then remember George Bush."

Also: i don't see how asking for the U.S. to leave is denying Iraqis the time to build a democracy. the assumptions behind such a statement are staggering.

Well if the government asked the US to leave, they might entertain it but they have not. In the meantime, giving some help to a new military doesn't seem outlandish considering your contention that there is a lot of bad stuff happening there.

Frankly, I don't beleive the U.S. prescence is making any difference in the security situation. It may even be making things worse.

Might. However, if the US left just to 'see' if you were right or not, the whole thing would more than likely go down the tubes completely. So, why not wait a bit like the UN and US did with Saddam?

I mean the fact that there is no government to speak of in Iraq at the moment. (Are you also aware that Iraqi officials including Jalal Talabani have rejected the Iran/U.S. talks?)

No government? Then who is this Talabani guy you refer to? And, the major point of this is that Iran feels it can gain more from dicussion than subversion. That in itself is a major turning point and indicatin that something has changed dynamically that they need to do something of that magnitude. Eventually, they will have to sit down with the Iranians. At the moment I believe it is simply posturing to the Sunnis and to the Shiites to show they are no US or Iranian puppets.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't recall Bush telling the American people that war was a last resort.

At an earlier press conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, Mr. Bush said the United States was prepared to lead a "coalition of the willing" if Iraq refuses to abandon its weapons programs but also repeated previous statements that he considers war a last resort.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html

And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html

Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event.

If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list.

Get real Jerry. Of course they would keep an open door (for diplomatic and political reasons), but it was clear to me that if Saddam didn't come clean or leave the country (as Bush said 48 hrs before the liberation began), that war was going to continue against Iraq (the 1991 war resulted in a ceasefire only).

Do you think that after Bush was given authorization "to use force" (code for war) in October 16/2002, doubled the amount of troops in Kuwait, doubled the amount of military equipment, that he was just trying to bluff Saddam?

Have you never heard of the Bush Doctrine?

How could you possibly be shocked to hear that a confidential memo from January 31/03 states that Bush was willing to go to war against Saddam without the UN's approval?!

Congress - the elected representatives of the American republic - are in charge of the US military, not the UN.

Russia supplied Iraq with 57% of its arms.

France supplied Iraq with 13% of its arms and had built Saddam a nuclear reactor.

China supplied Iraq with 12% of its arms.

The Top 3 arms sellers to Iraq comprised 82% of its military equipment (Czechoslovakia was 4th at 7%).

These 3 countries are on the Security Council and can block the USA.

Saddam owed these countries billions of dollars.

France and Russia had large oil deals with Saddam.

There was no doubt in my mind that the US was bent on dealing with Saddam, one way or another. The 2002 Iraq Resolution made that clear.

[KrustyKidd]

I wonder if Bush is having second thoughts about this 'democracy' business ;-)

No, if you read the article supplied you will see he is kick starting an impasse in the democratic business.

Here, I'll give it to you

The Shia United Iraqi Alliance chose Mr Jaafari as its candidate in February after winning December's election.

But Kurdish and Sunni Arab parties have rejected the UIA's nomination and have threatened to boycott a national unity government unless it is withdrawn.

The delay in forming a government is also thought to be partly responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence which has struck Iraq since last month's bombing of the al-Askari shrine at Samarra, one of Shia Islam's holiest.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't recall Bush telling the American people that war was a last resort.

At an earlier press conference with President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic, Mr. Bush said the United States was prepared to lead a "coalition of the willing" if Iraq refuses to abandon its weapons programs but also repeated previous statements that he considers war a last resort.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_11-20-02.html

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021016-1.html

If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030306-8.html

And, as a last resort, we must be willing to use military force. We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030308-1.html

Well, that took five minutes. Note the last two were shortly after his coniving with Tony Blair to go to war regardless of any event.

If I included every time Ari and Scott (speaking for the President) and Colin et al said war was a "last resort", it would be a much longer list.

Get real Jerry. Of course they would keep an open door (for diplomatic and political reasons),

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think you can debate in that fashion?

First you say you don't recall Bush saying war was "a last resort". I demonstrate that you must have been sleeping during the run up to war with several examples of just that.

And now you talk about them keeping an open door? There was no door, open or otherwise!

You "get real" Monty. Wake up and smell the coffee you spilled all over yourself. The war was decided upon, and this proves it.

[gerryhatrick]

You know, I'm surprised people like KK and Monty and the other few around here defending Bush and all he's done don't just slink away and hide out until the Repubs get themselves a new leader.

Defending someone so obviously dishonest and incompetant who's f'd up things so badly is a thankless job.