Senate to probe how case for war was made

[bevin]

Quote:

---

actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein

---

They voted in favor of letting the president decide to use force. The president decided to use it - not the elected representatives.

The president was given permission to hang himself. But he tied the knot and jumped himself.

Quote:

---

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq’s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration...

---

Actually, no they did not. They decided it was worth authorizing the president to use force IF HE NEEDED TO.

The truth is the DATA was changing weekly, and they did NOT reach the conclusion that they should go to war...

(a) The data was being produced by the UN Weapons Inspectors - and Bush choose to disbelieve and ignore them.

( The Clinton administration did not think the earlier evidence and the intention was so strong as to be worth invading Iraq

© It was the rabble rousing by the Bush administration that linked 9/11 and Iraq - there was no other connection.

The rest of Cheney's self-serving nonsense is more of the "if you disagree with me you are an unconscionable anti-army anti-patriotic anti-God piece of slime" that the Bush administration uses to defend itself all the time.

It can't defend itself with facts, because the facts are against it, so instead it defends itself with ad-hominem attacks.

I am hoping the American people are finally seeing through this nonsense the same way they finally saw through Joe MacCathy and his everyone-who-I-dont-like-is-a-communist theory...

/Bevin

[Neil D]

I found the resolution from the senate and am posting the authoriztion that is stated in the bill. Of course, there are a lot of "whereas" that explain why the bill is being passed, including the supposed knowledge of 'weapons of mass destruction' and a few other thoughts that you can find here

[:"green"] 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.

(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 there after as may be feasible, but not 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 ( 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.

© 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( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. [/]

[Dr. Shane]

It seems senators did recieve intelligence information independantly from the White House. They did recieve briefings from the CIA.

However it is also true that the White House had more intellience information than the senators except for those senators that requested more. In order to maintain the seperation of powers, all the intelligence available to the White House was also available to the senators on the Intelligence Committee. However most senators on the committee did not take advantage of what they had available and so they did get their much of their information from the White House. However that was not the fault of the White House but the fault of the individual senators.

Based on the information they had, Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. If they didn't have enough information it is their own fault. To now come back and say giving authorization was not the same as ordering it to be done is a little weak. It is like a father, when being asked by his son if he can go to a concert, saying "Go if you want to," only later to discipline the child for going. The father could say, "I didn't tell you to go. I just said, 'go if you want to.'"

[Dr. Shane]

[:"green"]

© 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( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. [/]

That, my friends, is a modern-day Declaration of War. The War Powers Act of 1973 changed how Congress declares war. They followed that law, just as they did in 1990.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

To now come back and say giving authorization was not the same as ordering it to be done is a little weak.

---

Read the resolution

Quote:

---

the President shall, ... make available ... his determination that(1) reliance by the United States on [:"red"]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 (

is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

and[/]

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution [:"red"]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.[/]

---

The president never did EITHER of the things he was REQUIRED to do when using this authorization.

The UN Weapons Inspectors were clearly doing their job and the UN resolutions were being enforced.

There is NO evidence that Iraq was planning or enabling terrorist attacks on the USA.

GWB was TOLD the evidence was uncertain, and when he pushed on it, was merely given a "its a slam dunk" without any further evidence being offered.

GWB was TOLD the Weapons Inspectors were not finding any evidence.

GWB KNEW that there was NO evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 or other terrorism.

He KNEW he could go back to the UN.

He SHOULD HAVE known that the result would be a huge mess - all the rest of the world did. It was obvious to everyone who understands anything about the Middle East that we were NOT going to instantly turn the place into a model democracy.

The result was a terribly bad decision - and a series of public statements that he KNEW were false. He lied to the American people to get us into the war.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

That is a biased view of how things happened. Diplomatic resolutions were tried. However those efforts were doomed to failure because Saddam was bribing members of the UN Security Council.

Saddam was being evasive with the weapons inspectors so it didn't seem the inspectors would ever be able to do their job.

There was and still is a lot of circumstancial evidence that tied Saddam to Ossama (not 9/11). Saddam met with al Queda officials on many occations and offered Ossama an Iraqi passport.

It simply is not an easy black and white issue as the partisan groups, on both sides, want to make it appear. The Democrats that gave approval knew we were headed to war, as did the Republicans, to pretend otherwise is simply not honest.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Diplomatic resolutions were tried. However those efforts were doomed to failure because Saddam was bribing members of the UN Security Council.

---

Simply put, this is false. Provide evidence of ONE COUNTRY having its position changed by bribes.

Oh yeah - Australia - no, wait, that was the Bush administration bribing them with a free trade deal.

Oh I know, Turkey - no, that was the Bush administration again, and they rejected the bribe.

Maybe it was Taiwan - no, that was payback for the American defense of Taiwan.

Or some of those ex-Soviet Union eastern European countries? No - they came on the American side because they were bribed with having US bases and the associated money moved to their soil

There was bribing going on - and the USA was the source of the money.

Quote:

---

Saddam was being evasive with the weapons inspectors so it didn't seem the inspectors would ever be able to do their job.

---

Again, not true. In the six months before the war the weapons inspectors themselves reported getting access to where they wanted to go, in a timely manner. The fact is that there were NO WMD AND NO WMD PROGRAM TO BE FOUND - and the only reason the Bush administration ignored their good work is because it contradicted [:"blue"]the Bush LIE that he knew there were WMD[/].

/Bevin

[Bravus]

I thought at the time and still think that the situation was analogous to having a cop come up to me and say 'show me the kilo of heroin you have'. And I say 'I don't have a kilo of heroin', and after some back and forth he arrests me for refusing to show him the non-existent heroin. Bushco said to Saddam 'show us the WMD', and Saddam couldn't because he had none. How do you prove a negative?

[Dr. Shane]

The difference is this: we know he had them and according to the cease-fire agreement he was to destroy them. But not just destroy them, but to provide evidence that they were destroyed. That was never done. There are still missing WMDs that we know existed pre 1991 and we don't know what happened to them.

So that is a major difference.

On top of that are all the false leaks Saddam created to make the world think he had WMDs. Then all his connections with terrorists, especially Hamas. Add to that the fact that he was being evasive with the UN inspectors.

So a better analogy is that a known drug runner is pulled over by the police. They have already busted his dealer whom confessed to selling him a kilo of heroin. They ask him where it is and he says he doesn't have any. They ask if they can search his car and he says no. And the game goes on until they get a search warrent for his car, house, business, boat, etc and find nothing. Then he says, "See I told you I didn't have anything."

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Add to that the fact that he was being evasive with the UN inspectors.

---

How? By showing them what they asked to see?

You keep getting confused between the facts about the 6 months before the war, the facts about the period before that, and the lies of the Bush administration.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Hans Blix says Iraq probably destroyed most WMDs long ago

Quote:

---

Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believes Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a military attack.

---

[:"blue"] Hans Blix admits Saddam was decieving the world.

This next story comes right after the Iraq invation.

[/]

Blix casts doubt on WMDs

Quote:

---

"I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel.

If that were the case, he said, Iraq's evasive behaviour in recent years could be due to Saddam Hussein's fixation with Iraqi honour and a wish to dictate the conditions under which people could enter the country.

"For that reason, he said 'no' in many situations and gave the impression he was hiding something," he said

---

[:"blue"] Note: The grand puba Hans Blix said Saddam "gave the impression he was hiding something." He was refering to the weeks and years just before the invasion - not the pre-1998 inspections. [/]

[Neil D]

[:"blue"]A case for war? Yes, say US and Britain. No, say the majority

Julian Borger in Washington and Ewen MacAskill

Saturday February 15, 2003 [/] PLease note: This report was one month before the invasion. [:"blue"] The Guardian

The US and Britain's drive to gain international backing for a war with Iraq was in deep trouble last night in the face of unexpectedly upbeat reports by United Nations weapons inspectors.

American and British diplomats had hoped to circulate draft language as early as today for a new UN resolution authorising an invasion. But after yesterday's heated security council showdown, in which the overwhelming majority made clear their opposition to war, that strategy is in jeopardy.

Britain last night insisted it would press ahead with framing the resolution. An official said it was unlikely that a draft resolution would be circulated over the weekend. Instead, it would be pushed back until Tuesday at the earliest. "If you slap down a piece of paper right away, it doesn't look like you were listening."

The French and Russian foreign ministers were given rare applause in the council chamber yesterday when they demanded more time for inspections, in striking contrast to the stony silence that greeted hoarse and irritable insistence that time had run out from Colin Powell, the US secretary of state.

Last night the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said France would not support a UN resolution authorising war. It was unclear whether that would mean that France, one of the five permanent members of the UN security council, would use its veto or abstain.

Far from resolving differences, [:"red"] the reports by Mr Blix and Mohamed El Baradei, the two chief inspectors, appeared only to deepen the divide in the security council, and in effect called the US bluff on whether Washington is prepared to attack Iraq without UN blessing. [/]

Mr Powell faced the additional humiliation of having the reliability of [:"red"] the intelligence evidence he had presented against Iraq 10 days earlier called into question by both chief inspectors. [/]

It was, most of all, a disastrous day for Tony Blair, who has committed more than 30,000 troops to the US-led military build-up in the Gulf, but whose government has pledged that it would only go to war without UN backing if a war resolution was "unreasonably blocked" by one of the permanent five states.

This morning he will face a potentially hostile audience when he speaks to the Scottish Labour party in Glasgow. Public unease about the drive to war is also expected to be underlined in one of the largest protest marches in recent times, to be held in London today. If Mr Blair goes to war without a second resolution, he will face ministerial resignations and mass defections from the Labour party.

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, tried to hold the US-UK line against mounting opposition. He urged all 15 members to "hold our nerve" in the face of President Saddam Hussein.

Among the 13 other council members, however, his words fell on deaf ears. The US and Britain won clear support only from Spain.

Dr Blix surprised the security council with a mixed assessment of Iraqi compliance much milder in tone than his report 17 days earlier, in which he accused Baghdad of refusing to accept the need for disarmament. Yesterday, he focused on steps Iraq had taken to improve cooperation, reduce the number of minders accompanying inspectors, and provide more documents on weapons not accounted for.

[:"red"] Mr Blix directly challenged satellite photographs of a munitions depot which Mr Powell had claimed showed decontamination vehicles associated with chemical weapons.[/] He said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection."

Mr El Baradei, the chief nuclear inspector, also questioned the emphasis Mr Powell and British officials had put on the discovery of 2,000 pages of documents at the home of an Iraqi scientist. [:"red"] The US and Britain portrayed it as an attempt to hide papers, but Mr El Baradei said there was nothing new in the documents. [/]

Visibly angry with the diplomatic rout, Mr Powell insisted "the threat of force must remain". He said he knew as a former soldier that war should be a last resort, but he insisted "it must be a resort". "More inspectors? Sorry. It's not the answer," he said.

[:"red"] He was scathing about the suggestion that Iraq had offered genuine concessions.[/] Yes, the inspectors were being accompanied by fewer Iraqi government minders but "they're still being minded, still being watched, still being bugged".

The security council now faces a crisis. At best, it is likely to be deadlocked for days. At worst, the Bush administration may decide that it has waited long enough and go it alone. [/]

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

He was scathing about the suggestion that Iraq had offered genuine concessions. Yes, the inspectors were being accompanied by fewer Iraqi government minders but "they're still being minded, still being watched, still being bugged".

---

What a good reminder. Why did Saddam bug the inspectors? Did he want to know what they had found or where they planned to look next? Hmmmmmm, sounds suspicious

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Note: The grand puba Hans Blix said Saddam "gave the impression he was hiding something." He was refering to the weeks and years just before the invasion - not the pre-1998 inspections.

---

Shane - BUSH SAID HE WAS CERTAIN IRAQ HAD WMD - Bush LIED.

Quote:

---

Why did Saddam bug the inspectors? Did he want to know what they had found or where they planned to look next?

---

Perhaps because he suspected that some of the Weapons Inspectors were actually US spies, doing more than they were supposed to be doing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/analysis021698.htm

Of course, the US wouldn't do anything like that, would it...

US bugs UN

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Shane - BUSH SAID HE WAS CERTAIN IRAQ HAD WMD - Bush LIED.

---

So did Cheney and Rice..According to published news accounts, they "KNEW" where those WMDS were...Of course, when the weapons inspectors insisted that the US tell them where they were, the US ignored that request.

In reviewing the published news reports from Hans Blix, there is this assumption that Saddam had WMDs, and Hans reflected that in his reports....In those same reports, he tells of the compliance and the lack of evidence that the WMDs were destroyed, and the lack of WMDs....

So, just how do you prove a negitive statement?

You have placed this country on footing that paints them into a cornor already, and as a superpower, the US was essentially a bully and beating up a little country. This is how we are viewed by the rest of the world. And, like all the other countries that were superpowers of thier times, it WILL come back to bite them.

[Dr. Shane]

If there is one thing we should have learned from the UN Oil-for-Food Scandel, it is that someone should be buging the UN. It is such a corrupt organization. While it is to be enforcing sanctions on Saddam, it is taking bribes from him! Where it sends off peace-keepers to take care of refugees, they rape the women! They put a dictator in charge of the human rights commission who, himself, is a major violator of them. In all seriousness, I trust the pope more than I trust the UN.