If that is true, then Code Pink is right about Bush, 9/11, and Iraq.
If you look at the Iraq war from a pure neutral point of view. It does not make any sense whatsoever! Just like Libya makes no sense! Just like what we are doing in Syria makes no sense! 911 had nothing to do with Iraq! Yet we spent all of out time, blood and money in there! For what reason? Trump is 100 percent right on this one! Take off the GOP filtered glasses and you will agree!
The only lie that W told then was that Islam was or is a “religion of peace”. Those who think that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were the only threat/perps of 9/11, just haven’t been paying attention. There is a world of Islamic terror/totalitarianism out there, and Bush sought to take out its heart. He tried, and missed. There are plenty more where Saddam and Osama came from, and they are multiplying as we argue about this nonsense.
Where is the nutbird alert?
I call bullshit on the whole Argument here. The policy was set before Bush was in office and reinventing Cheney and the gang spending the first eight months overly focused on Saddam and not al Qaeda is complete and utter bullshit. First, Clinton was president for eight years and didn’t do squat whille we got hit at the WTC, two embassies, and a navy ship. Al queda was not Important to him. Iraq was a constant focus, and for good reason, since the end of GHWBush’s term.
Most of bush’s top level appointments didn’t even make it to office until summer because of the split senate and hangover from the hanging chad election. It’s well documented the primary focus of the top level guys was improved relations with Russia in the early days. This history rewrite from the far left must be rejected wholly and fully.
Starting to sound like DU around here.
What a boatload of distortion. Bush yielded to leftist demands for an "exit strategy". They got what they demanded then blamed him later.
The rag who’s largest stockholder also owns a majority share of the Tribune Corp? Pffff...
I left out the 500,000+ people Saddam had killed because, who cares? /s
Oh that’s just rich, Bush’s fault. Never mind the fact that the United States Policy was by hook or crook to remove Sadaam, his sons and the rest of the cabal by peace if possible and by force if necessary.
You can read all about it yourself. It’s not as if Bill Clinton and all 100 Senators didn’t urge this as our policy. But why let a little fact get in the way and under the lens of 911, I think it was time to say “Enough” and end our cessation of hostilities. The terms of the cessation of hostilities had 28 mandates for the Iraqi government, 17 of which they regularly violated and shot at our airplanes damn near every week.
So Buh-Bye
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 H.R. 4655 (PL 105-338) was passed October 5, 1998, in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming majority. On October 7, the companion bill, S. 2525, passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate, “establishing a program [to] support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” [1]
Speaking on behalf of the bill in the Senate, Trent Lott said:
“The United States has many means at its disposal to support the liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom fighters In Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.
Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
October 31, 1998
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.” This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.
Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council’s efforts to keep the current regime’s behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq’s diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq’s prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, October 31, 1998.
two wars (started by Obama’s predecessor) and the calamitous malfunctioning of key industries — finance, housing, health care, energy and more. Yet, instead of an effort to come together to meet what are national crises, the right-wing echo chamber talks only about bringing the president down, and the Republican leaders embrace and parrot the extreme anger of the right. The so-called moderates duck and cover. No more mavericks allowed.
And here is a PDF of the Law: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf
First, Bill Clinton and the entire Senate, that’s all 100 senators, signed the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. The state goal was to overthrow Saddam Insane and his entire regime and replace it with a democratic government.
That is a fact:
The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:
1. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed following the Gulf War and
3. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.
See here for a quick Wiki that makes it a short read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
Don’t forget to read the part where Clinton states categorically what Iraq admitted to.
Bottom line we knew as did the French, Germans, Italians, South African Nations, N. Korea(our intel on them) and many others what Saddam was attempting to acquire and what he already had
WHICH INCLUDED:
550 METRIC TONS of YELLOW CAKE. USED FOR MAKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
MORE THAN 500 SARIN AND MUSTARD GAS LACED BOMBS.
There is plenty more but lets look at some of the lefts vaunted leaders and what they had to say at various times:
Let’s start with Al Gore criticizing George Bush 41 for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Or how about this hit from 1998 Al Gore: No Doubt Saddam’s Weapons Are Grave Threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc&feature=related
Hey what about a guy that was once in Vietnam John Kerry saying he found WMD in Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH93UlGHBfk&feature=related
Hey even Nancy Pelosi claims Iraq had WMD and she seems pretty unequivocal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwDJRBOsj78&feature=related
Here is a greatest hits of Democrats who in no certain terms absolutely claimed Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. They made these claims on more than one occasion and with specificity. The quotes are from Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards:
3 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related
Here is a 6 minute video of other Democrats on Iraq’s WMD and how it would be irresponsible to leave Saddam unchecked;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts&feature=fvw
So who is the liar? Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, et al?
Surely they knew Saddam had WMD. Bill Clinton did after all launch missiles on Iraq in an attempt to destroy some of them.
Concerning the presence of WMDs, David Kay reported Hussein was developing missiles with ranges in excess of UN limitations, saying they were the center pole of the tent under which Hussein would rebuild his WMDs as the sanction regime further deteriorated. He found Hussein retained the scientists and technology to restart production of mustard and VX gas. Hussein was also currently developing an indigenous precursor for VX and a stimulant for freeze-drying anthrax. Kay reported Hussein was rebuilding infrastructure and staff for nuclear weapons. Mahdi Obeidi maintained in the New York Times that when the world looked the other way, the knowledge of hundreds of scientists could be applied to existing designs and a centrifuge prototype to jump start the operation. Iraq already had 500 tons of yellow cake in the country under U.N. seal, which was confirmed to have no meaning after the North Korean experience. The regime just needed a latter day Albert Speer or Leslie Groves to replace Hussein Kamel.
The idea Hussein did not have stockpiles of WMDs is not a creditable assumption. One has to believe that a fracturing, Oriental dictatorship of several competing and self-interested spheres of influence achieved an unparalleled intelligence deception. The sophisticated intelligence services of U.S.A., Britain, France, and Germany had independently determined Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.
These intelligence professionals apply different methods using different resources, and jealously guard their insights and prerogatives. As an example the Butler Commission still maintains Hussein's people went to Niger to acquire yellow cake contrary to the amateurish assertion of Joe Wilson. Common sense tells you his dictatorship would never allow valuable people to leave the country just to collect a few local crafts from a country whose leading export is uranium. All four of them were not wrong. The most reasonable assumption, for which much evidence exists, is that Syria and Russia received inventories in trust for the regime.
The evidence was sufficiently creditable that not only Bush, but Congress believed the stockpiles were present. I quote, "We have known for years Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs. Iraq's search for WMDs has proven impossible to deter and we should assume it continues as long as Saddam is in power. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that demanded he disarm and destroy chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq October 1998. We are confident Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up chemical and biological warfare capabilities. There is unmistakable evidence Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Hussein and eliminate Iraq's WMDs once and for all."
The above quotes compile statements respectively by Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and John Edwards. These quotes were uncontested points in 2002, and formed a basis for legislation enabling Bush to follow U.N. resolutions to use military force to remove Hussein's regime, and the threat posed by his material breach of obligations to prove abandonment of WMDs and terrorist support.
Concerning the irrelevance of WMDs, the ceasefire ended and war began in 1991 was resumed, because Hussein behaved in material breach of international obligations as reaffirmed in Resolution 1441. Nowhere in Congressional resolutions of 1991, 1998 and 2002, or U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 can one see possession of stockpiles of WMDs as a reason for confronting him with military action. Behavior in terms of threats, evasion, intimidation, and past use, not possession, was always the key. He was to unconditionally accept destruction or removal of all stocks and programs for WMDs and for all missiles over 150-kilometre range. He was enjoined from committing, supporting or providing safe haven for international terrorism. I was continually frustrated by Bush Administration spokesmen and media advocates, who would not craft sound bites emphasizing that behavior and the resultant uncertainty was central to resuming the war.
Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment, and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. Instead he ignored the responsibility to submit a comprehensive declaration of all WMD stockpiles and programs, and missiles with greater than 150 kilometre range. He thwarted the program envisioned by menacing, eluding, and deceiving inspectors. The U.N. resorted to surveillance, analysis, and investigation to destroy material and disrupt programs until Hussein expelled them in 1998. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, U.N. and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with Hussein's ongoing material breaches.
None of these resolutions were cobbled together like a middle schoolers term paper. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase for clear focus on actions instead of nouns; behaviors not stockpiles. The key words were guarantee, reaffirm, accept, submit, declare, yield, forgo, agree, inform, comply, cooperate, lie, omit, and thwart. The U.N.'s ultimatums in Resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized disarming Hussein's regime through military operations in Iraq "to restore international peace and security in the area", and did not instruct the coalition to merely expel Hussein from Kuwait.
U.N. precedent from the Korean War ensured the above phrase intended invasion of Iraq. The term "in the area" used phraseology, confirmed by the U.N. and Congress, authorizing military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea. Everyone in the Security Council and Congress understood that a further material breach required ending the ceasefire, and resuming the war authorized by Resolution 678.
The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill envisioned re-establishment of collective security when founding the U.N. in San Francisco. Finally in 2003 the United States, heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler's Germany, toppled Hussein's regime, and forced the U.N. to confront the reason for its existence.
Text U.N. Resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
Text U.N. Resolution 687
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4
Text U.N. Resolution 1441
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
David Kay Interview
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
Saddam, the Bomb and Me
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?pagewanted=print&position
CIA World Fact Book: Niger
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html
Ted Kennedy Sept. 27, 2002; http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
Al Gore Sept. 23, 2002: www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Henry Waxman October10, 2002; http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
Robert Byrd October 3, 2002; http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm
Jay Rockefeller October 10, 2002; http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
John Edwards October 10, 2002; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:7:./temp/~r107pqkqkf:e858562:
Korean War Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1e85c.html
Butler Commission: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf
The first time Powell appeared on TV following the attack on the twin towers he was talking about Bin Laden and Al Queda. He definitely knew who they were.
The lack of definitive proof of large amounts of WMD keeps me from defending Bush and company - if they existed, we could have proved it but it wuz just too hard to disrupt them convoys heading out.......if we can film them we can trash them and sift through the rubble after.
Just the beginning Donald, and he is to be commended for giving the DEMOCRATS/HILLARY something to debate in the general, other than the IRS, VA, BENGHAZI, GITMO, OBAMACARE, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, ISIS, ECONOMY. You know, all those issues that were so important before Trump’s big, beautiful, enormous, wall.