wncs: JUST TO AID YOUR FUZZY MEMORY JUST A LITTLE BIT.
Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002) Joint Resolution 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 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' (Public Law 105-235); 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 an 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 resolutions 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 American 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 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949; Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 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 (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 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 assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'. 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 applicable to 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. 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists 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 resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. (a) 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 Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). (b) 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 Public Law 93-148 (the Wap Xnwers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress. (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of 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 Public Law 102-1. August 24, 2008 Who Lied About Iraq? Americanthinker.com By Randall Hoven Do not believe that post-invasion intelligence invalidates our justification for using military force against Saddam's Iraq. The truth is the exact opposite. The US was fully justified to use military force against Iraq, even knowing what we know now -- especially knowing what we know now. We should not allow the false story -- almost accepted as fact -- as we head into a Presidential election, to go unchallenged. The False Story "The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists - both proved false." USA Today While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the "Bush lied, people died" meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004. The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture. The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises. If lying is an art, our media have mastered it. The Premise Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the "Authorization".) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law. Did the Authorization try to "prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction"? Was that proved false? No and no. The Authorization has 23 "whereas" clauses, or reasons to justify military invasion, only some of which mention WMD. Here is a prime example. "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." [Emphasis added.] There are several things to notice in that clause. First is the tense of the verb "had." The clause does not claim that Iraq has WMD now (in 2002), but that it at one time had them. Secondly, the only stockpiles mentioned are of chemical weapons. Of biological and nuclear weapons it mentions only programs. At no place does the Authorization say that any WMD are current (post-1991). Another clause states Iraq continues "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" (my emphasis). Again, capabilities and potential capabilities are mentioned, but not ready- to-use weapons or even weapon programs, much less large stockpiles of modern WMD. Feel free to read all 23 clauses. The Authorization never claims that Iraq had large stockpiles of modern WMD in 2002, which later became, for no good reason, the threshold used for validation by the media and administration critics. (The logical fallacy employed by Bush's critics here is the "straw man.") Am I being hyper-technical in parsing the grammar of the Authorization -- wallowing in what the meaning of "is" is? No. It is the media that is spinning by demanding that only finding large stockpiles of modern WMD would legitimize the war. I am using the actual law as clearly stated. Such an authorization, passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President, was not just cobbled together willy-nilly. It was the law of the land -- carefully crafted, debated and passed. Words matter. So what was found post-invasion? The Duelfer Report noted that 53 chemical weapons were found. "Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered." (Found on page 97 of Annex F of Volume 3.) That number later grew to over 500 chemical weapons. You can now check the "large stockpiles of chemical weapons" off your checklist (even though the Authorization did not claim they existed in 2002 or later). What about biological and nuclear programs? "Initially, Saddam chose to conceal his nuclear program in its entirety, as he did with Iraq's BW [Biological Warfare] program. Aggressive UN inspections after Desert Storm forced Saddam to admit the existence of the program and destroy or surrender components of the program. In the wake of Desert Storm, Iraq took steps to conceal key elements of its program and preserve what it could of the professional capabilities of its nuclear scientific community." You may now also check the biological and nuclear weapons programs off your checklist. At one time he had them. The only question was how active such programs were in 2002. But we know that he had them at one time and that he also concealed them later. Were these programs still active, but concealed, in 2002 or had he put them on hiatus? For the purpose of the Authorization, the answer doesn't matter, but let's examine it anyway. As to concealment, note the following Duelferisms. The word "conceal" is found 57 times in Volume 1 alone. "Many locations associated with previous WMD programs and sites under monitoring by the United Nations have been completely looted... Often there is nothing but a concrete slab at locations where once stood plants or laboratories." "We cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war." "ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq." You can make what you will of those statements. What I make of them is that Duelfer and his fellow inspectors really have no idea what happened with Saddam's WMD, facilities or programs. They didn't look everywhere. Where they did look was mostly "looted," where "looting" could mean cleaned out to conceal evidence. Saddam consistently concealed what he was up to. And Duelfer cannot make a statement about what might have been transported out of Iraq. The Duelfer Report is three volumes of "I don't know." Post-invasion intelligence is no more trustworthy than pre-invasion intelligence. In any case, Duelfer makes clear that Saddam had every intention of restoring the programs as soon as he could get sanctions lifted. His very first finding, echoed often throughout the report, states his fundamental conclusion. "[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted." In short, the Authorization did not try to "prove that Iraq had WMD." Inasmuch as the Authorization mentioned WMD, such statements were fully validated by post-war intelligence. And Duelfer went even further than Authorization claims by finding that Saddam had every intention of reconstituting his WMD has soon as he could bribe his way out of sanctions. Did the Authorization try to "prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists"? Was that proved false? Again, no and no. The Authorization mentions the September 11 attacks in five of the 23 "whereas" clauses. Here is what it says in three such clauses, with the other two being repeats of the same sentiments. "Members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for the attacks ... are known to be in Iraq." The "attacks... underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of WMD by international terrorist organizations." "... necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those ... who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." One clause mentions 9/11 only to provide a background of the gravity of the situation. Another clause explicitly says that all terrorists are to be targeted, noting that the 9/11 terrorists are only a subset of that larger threat. There is only one statement in all of the Authorization that connects Iraq with al Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, and then only indirectly. All it says is that some al Qaida members were known to be in Iraq. Note that nowhere in the Authorization is there any claim of even a logistical, training or strategic relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, much less an operational or planning one for the 9/11 attacks in particular. Again for no good reason, this latter claim became the only legitimate threshold for military action per administration critics. Were any al Qaida members in Iraq at the time of the Authorization? Yes, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his cell. The most recent Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the matter concluded the following . "[Pre-war administration] statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments. Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. "Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al-Qa'ida was present in northern Iraq." This report is the product of a Democrat-controlled Senate committee, chaired by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Moreover, more extensive Iraq-al-Qaida links have also been substantiated. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, "One of the reported contacts [between Iraq and al-Qa'ida before the war] has been confirmed, and two other meetings have since been identified." Judge Harold Baer ruled in Federal court that Iraq was indeed partially responsible for the September 11 attacks, enough so that the plaintiffs could be awarded damages against Saddam's Iraq . The judge ruled there was "a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences" "that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.... Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11... Iraq provided materiel support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts." Judge Harold Baer is not some 10-Commandment-Displaying Reaganite; he was appointed by President Clinton. Significant testimony in the case came from James Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA chief from 1993 to 1995. In short, not only was the language of the Authorization validated, but significantly more involvement between Iraq and al Qaida has been substantiated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, a Clinton-appointed federal judge and a Clinton-appointed former CIA chief. So what was the terrorist-WMD reason for military action in Iraq? The September 11 attacks demonstrated to all of us that terrorist threats are not empty. Those of us who doubted the seriousness of such threats (and I was one of them) had our heads cleared on 9/11. Moreover, the attacks demonstrated just how deadly terrorists could be with only box-cutters and other low-tech tools. Between their words and their actions, we knew we could not let terrorists get their hands on WMD. On the other hand, hostile states could use terrorists as covert or plausibly-deniable WMD delivery devices. The nightmare nexus would be a hostile state with both WMD and terrorist connections. Iraq had both WMD and terrorist connections. In short, as the Authorization puts it in its sixth "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." It was also not obvious that Saddam would not use WMD himself, without resorting to terrorists as middlemen. He had already used them "against other nations and [his] own people." He had expressed his hatred of the US in word and deed by, among other things, attempting "to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces." What are some of those "other things" that made Iraq in "materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations"? Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991. It was in "direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire." Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991. It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country. Iraq agreed to "end its support for international terrorism" in 1991. It continued to "aid and harbor" international terrorist organizations, including those "that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens." Iraq "engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq refused "to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman." Iraq failed "to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait." Iraq attempted "to assassinate former President Bush." Iraq fired "on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council." Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions. Congress 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, 674, and 677." If Saddam's Iraq was not an "outlaw regime," then there is no such thing. Regardless of the careful wording of the Authorization, did the Bush administration orchestrate a "public relations drive" that was "proved false"? Inasmuch as a public relations drive was mounted, it was examined by a Democrat-controlled Senate Committee on Intelligence and largely found to be "substantiated by intelligence." This biased report from Chairman John Rockefeller's committee analyzed various statements by Bush administration officials and compared them to post-war intelligence. Here is what they found (emphasis added). "Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community." "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of biological agents, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information." "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information." "Statements ... regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves." "Statements ... regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence." "Statements ... that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be use to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community." "Statements ... regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa'ida were substantiated by intelligence information." "Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa'ida-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments." Substantiated, substantiated, substantiated by the intelligence. And these conclusions from some of the most ardent Bush-bashers in the Senate. About the worst they could come up with was that the Bush administration made claims with more confidence than seemed warranted by the intelligence community. Tell me, if military action is considered necessary and legal, by both Congress and the Executive branch, is it OK for the President to muster domestic and international support for such action by using rhetorical persuasion? I dare say, he would be negligent if he didn't. The True Story The Bush administration did not lie. Saddam's Iraq was a threat to the US that demanded the use of military force. That was not just Bush's "cowboy" opinion; that was the written law, passed by huge and bipartisan margins in both houses of Congress. That opinion was supported by both pre-war intelligence and post-war intelligence. Moreover, the "legal case" was solid and Iraq was given chance after chance after chance. The authorization noted at least 10 UN resolutions, spread out over a decade, to justify the use of US military force. The Authorization noted that "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 ... Public Law 107-40." [Emphasis added.] The Authorization noted Public Law 105-235 (passed under President Clinton) that 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." The invasion of Iraq was arguably the most justified case of military action the US has ever taken in its history, based on national defense, validated intelligence and legal authority, not to mention morality. Articles of impeachment would have made more sense if Bush had not invaded. That the exact opposite story is what a majority of Americans appear to believe, and a super-majority of non-Americans, is a scary thought. The truth has been sabotaged, and not by President Bush or his allies. Randall Hoven's writings can be found at kulak.worldbreak.com. On Dec 22, 1:46�pm, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > You yourself just pointed to Saddam as the reason for the invasion, > now you're backpedaling. Which is it? Can't have it both ways, you > know. > > On Dec 22, 1:40 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > SLIME wncs: > > > That have something to do with why we went into Iraq??? > > > Is there a time limit about how ,ong we are allowed to stay in Iraq? > > > The Mission Accomplished sign was for the completetion of the Mission > > for the aircraft carrier Bush was speaking on. > > > The Mission was Accompished for ousting Saddam Hussein - but not for > > settling down Iraq. > > > On Dec 22, 1:34 pm, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > March 2003: Saddam overthrown > > > May 2003: Bush declares "Mission Accomplished" > > > 2008: We're still there, and 97% of US casualties have come AFTER so- > > > called "mission accomplished." > > > >http://rawstory.com/news/2008/97_percent_of_US_death_toll_0324.html > > > > So, what was that about Saddam again? > > > > On Dec 22, 1:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The IRAQ invasion was L-E-G-AL and J-U-S-T-I-F-I-E-D. > > > > > Did you ever wonder why Saddam was a allowed to remain as president of > > > > Iraq after he got clobbered by the U.S. in the 1991 Gulf War? > > > > > Think he may have agreed to some surrender terms to allow him to stay > > > > in power? > > > > > Think he ever fulfilled those surrender terms?? > > > > > Read UN Resolution # 687. Saddam was given 15 days-- from April 3 > > > > until April 18, 1991 to fulfill the terms of his surrender. > > > > > By April of 2003 - 4,390 days AFTER his deadline, he still had not met > > > > the terms of his surrender. > > > > > Ever wonder why U.S. planes were over-flying Iraq all the years > > > > between 1991 and 2003, putting our pilots in danger? > > > > > P.S.: Read UN Resolution # 687 of April 3, 1991 THEN Read UN > > > > Resolution 1440 of the Fall of 2002 - which state that Saddam still > > > > had not fulfilled Resolution #687. > > > > > Do think you would be legally allowed to remain living in your house > > > > for 12 years (4,390 days) without ever making a mortgage payment - if > > > > you owed a mortgage??? > > > > > On Dec 22, 12:48 pm, wncs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Most of those troops would still be alive if they weren't sent to a > > > > > needless invasion of Iraq. Nothing he does can ever atone for that, > > > > > try as he might. > > > > > > On Dec 22, 12:43 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > December 22, 2008 > > > > > > americanthinker.com > > > > > > Rick Moran > > > > > > > Many readers of this site - including yours truly - have disagreed > > > > > > vehemently with George Bush on numerous occasions. Unlike the left, > > > > > > however, most of us have seen the president as a decent, God-fearing > > > > > > man who took office and served during perhaps the most consequential > > > > > > period of American history since the Civil War. > > > > > > > He will never, ever be vouchsafed this decency by the left - no > > > > > > matter > > > > > > if the evidence comes up and smacks them over the head. > > > > > > > Here's the bludgeon: > > > > > > > For much of the past seven years, President Bush and Vice President > > > > > > Dick Cheney have waged a clandestine operation inside the White > > > > > > House. > > > > > > It has involved thousands of military personnel, private > > > > > > presidential > > > > > > letters and meetings that were kept off their public calendars or > > > > > > sometimes left the news media in the dark. > > > > > > > Their mission: to comfort the families of soldiers who died fighting > > > > > > in Afghanistan and Iraq since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and to > > > > > > lift the spirits of those wounded in the service of their country. > > > > > > > On Monday, the president is set to make a more common public trip - > > > > > > with reporters in tow - to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, home to > > > > > > many of the wounded and a symbol of controversy earlier in his > > > > > > presidency over the quality of care the veterans were receiving. > > > > > > > But the size and scope of Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's private > > > > > > endeavors to meet with wounded soliders and families of the fallen > > > > > > far > > > > > > exceed anything that has been witnessed publicly, according to > > > > > > interviews with more than a dozen officials familiar with the > > > > > > effort. > > > > > > > Bush says the reason he did it is simply that he felt it his duty to > > > > > > do so. > > > > > > > Mr. Bush, for instance, has sent personal letters to the families of > > > > > > every one of the more than 4,000 troops who have died in the two > > > > > > wars, > > > > > > an enormous personal effort that consumed hours of his time and > > > > > > escaped public notice. The task, along with meeting family members > > > > > > of > > > > > > troops killed in action, has been so wrenching - balancing the > > > > > > anger, > > > > > > grief and pride of families coping with the loss symbolized by a > > > > > > flag- > > > > > > draped coffin - that the president often leaned on his wife, Laura, > > > > > > for emotional support. > > > > > > > "I lean on the Almighty and Laura," Mr. Bush said in the interview. > > > > > > "She has been very reassuring, very calming." > > > > > > > Mr. Bush also has met privately with more than 500 families of > > > > > > troops > > > > > > killed in action and with more than 950 wounded veterans, according > > > > > > to > > > > > > White House spokesman Carlton Carroll. Many of those meetings were > > > > > > outside the presence of the news media at the White House or at > > > > > > private sessions during official travel stops, officials said. > > > > > > > The first lady said those private visits, many of which she also > > > > > > attended, took a heavy emotional toll, not just on the president, > > > > > > but > > > > > > on her as well. > > > > > > > Vice President Cheney also made an extraordinary effort to meet with > > > > > > wounded soldiers and families of the deceased. > > > > > > > A purely political observation is if the public knew of this > > > > > > herculean > > > > > > effort on the part of Bush and Cheney - the sheer numbers being > > > > > > incredible - I daresay the president's approval ratings would not be > > > > > > hovering in the mid-20's. The demonization of Bush by the media and > > > > > > the left would have been much more difficult and perhaps less > > > > > > successful. > > > > > > > But in the end, they were right to keep it a secret. Any hint of > > > > > > politics in such an effort would have made the entire exercise seem > > > > > > hypocritical. And you can bet that the media and the left would have > > > > > > tried to paint any effort to visit and comfort the troops - such as > > > > > > the massive undertaking described in the article - as PR window > > > > > > dressing, nothing more. > > > > > > > Bush has come in for a lot of criticism - much of it deserved - over > > > > > > the years. But the portrayal of him as an unfeeling, uncaring man > > > > > > when > > > > > > it came to the suffering of soldiers or citizens as a result of war > > > > > > or > > > > > > natural disaster was always purely political. Even his most vigorous > > > > > > supporters, however, could not have imagined the extent to which he > > > > > > gave of his time and emotional energy to ease the suffering of > > > > > > Americans who have given so much for America during his time in > > > > > > office.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
