ACHTUNG, BABY! WHY WE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ!!

01/04/04 | Recovering_Democrat

[Recovering_Democrat]

I shall rest easier tonight knowing that the Marshall Islands and Latvia are awake. I think you miss my point. My point was that, you cannot be heard to justify this war on the basis of a UN Resolution that the UN refuses to defend.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you in my original post. I'll try again. :) There were scads of reasons for going into Iraq, in my opinion. But those ninnies screaming now about the supposed lack of WMDs are saying that was the only justification for going into Iraq, and without WMDs, there was a sinister Bush reason for doing so. They are wrong, even by their own standard of "doing it by the U.N.". U.N. Resolution 1441 was being breached by Iraq. The President, authorized by the declaration of Congress and by 1441 itself (the "serious consequences" clause) enforced the U.N. Resolutions dating back to 1991.

If every nation in the world had a few people in Iraq, that does not change the reality that we led the charge without UN approval.

Show me where the U.N. disapproved of our action. What vote of the Security Council passed such a disapproval?

I am not saying that our action was wrong. But to justify it on the sole basis of the UN Resolution is to hide behind something for which we had no respect in the first place.

You should understand now this is not the sole basis of our action, at least in my opinion. But it is a sufficient basis.

If the UN is only a useful tool for US aggression, we then contribute to its impotence if we are heard to justify our actions on the basis of its Resolutions.

Balderdash. What contributes to the U.N.'s "impotence" is the weak-kneed "leaders" who infiltrate and populate that institution, refusing to take a stand against the human rights abusers and terrorists of this world. Enforcing the will of the world (in this case, Iraq's complete compliance with a score of Resolutions) creates legitimacy for the U.N.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031215-3.html

Pres. Bush 12-15-03

"Since then, David Kay has reported back that he had weapons programs that would have put him in material breach of 1441. What that means, of course, is that had David Kay been the lead inspector, and had done the work that he did prior to our removal of Saddam, he would have reported back to the U.N. Security Council that Saddam was, in fact, in breach of the Council resolutions that were passed. "

[elbucko]

.., but I think that he will still be comfortable that he did his best to protect us.

So do I.
I think he would like to be reelected, but not at the expense of his country.

[elbucko]

...because the president in question didn't have a D after his name. Had that been the case, there would have been a parade in NYC after all was said and done.

Had that been the case, a president with a "D" after his name, there wouldn't be any parades because Saddam Hussein and his sons would still be in charge of Iraq.

[speekinout]

I think he would like to be reelected, but not at the expense of his country.

Oh, yes. And is there any other candidate we can say that of?
I'll be heading down to the local GOP HQs to see if there's anything I can do very shortly. I hope they don't write off even the leftmost states this year; GWB has money, so I hope he can start tugging some of the unknowing farther to the right.