A question of those who don't support the war in Iraq:

[alphieb]

There is a lot that hasn't been released to the public for various reasons. Some information will hurt current efforts in the Middle East.

Maybe that is the case. I thought this war was about WMD or was that just part of it?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Come on Simon "the base" is a loose network of many non-affiliated terrorist organizations its mainly the public face, organizational, and fund raising side of the broader Islamic terrorist network, AlQaeda has its fingers in a lot of honey pots.

So you're saying that even though Mr. Hayes did not say so, Mr. Hayes is writing about aQ and Hussein?

What is it going to take, a picture of Saddam Hussein and O.B.L. shaking hands for you to understand what was going on in post-war Iraq?

It will take more than you saying that Mr. Hayes said something he didn't say about some things he hasn't seen which may or not be accurate to convince me that the present state of the violent unrest in Iraq is the end result of a pre-war plot between Hussein and UbL via third parties.

The insurgency was well foreseen [outside of the Bush Admin anyway]. There's no requirement that it be anything other than what it appears and what was expected. It could be of course. It may well be that the present state of the violent unrest in Iraq is the end result of a pre-war plot between Hussein and UbL via third parties. But there'd have to be more evidence than you saying that Mr. Hayes said something he didn't say about some things he hasn't seen which may or not be accurate.

 

[MSgt]

Maybe that is the case. I thought this war was about WMD or was that just part of it?

This war is about many reasons. Existing WMD is a short-term threat. Radical Islam represents a long-term, continuing threat to the U.S. in that it lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired terrorism. The long-term threat is the civilization in the Middle East who will seek WMD. The Middle East must change.
90% of worlds current conflicts involve Muslim countries and currently between 1% and 20% of the Islam world is Radical. The reason we have to give them every opportunity to change is that within the next 25 years these populations will grow...

Egypt’s population will increase by 38%
Jordan’s by 67%
Syria’s by 58%
Saudi Arabia’s by 94%
Pakistan’s by 69%, and
Israel’s by 39%

....and so will the Radical element that see terrorism as the only means to change their social, political, and religious forms. Because of this, our "indirect, non-military" support is a demand in most areas and revealing many things that we have learned will hurt current endeavors.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's the whole point it says that the DOD is actively targeting them in coordination with the Pentagon and military personnel on the ground, case closed we don't support them.

Oh, that's what you're on about.
That was in early 2003.

They've held fundraisers in Washington DC. The Chariman of President's Defense Policy Advisory Board was a keynote speaker at one their fundraisers.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

So you're saying that even though Mr. Hayes did not say so, Mr. Hayes is writing about aQ and Hussein?


It will take more than you saying that Mr. Hayes said something he didn't say about some things he hasn't seen which may or not be accurate to convince me that the present state of the violent unrest in Iraq is the end result of a pre-war plot between Hussein and UbL via third parties.

No what I'm saying is that this article proves the links between Saddam and Non-Secular terrorist organizations. What I think you're saying is that if an organization doesn't openly fly under the banner of AlQaeda that they are not just as much of a threat as AlQaeda, the enemy has been made clear, it's radical Islamic terrorism, and these guys fit the bill.

The insurgency was well foreseen [outside of the Bush Admin anyway]. There's no requirement that it be anything other than what it appears and what was expected. It could be of course. It may well be that the present state of the violent unrest in Iraq is the end result of a pre-war plot between Hussein and UbL via third parties. But there'd have to be more evidence than you saying that Mr. Hayes said something he didn't say about some things he hasn't seen which may or not be accurate.

Whatever, this article unequivacbly states evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and radical Islamic terrorist organizations, you can spin it, however, you want take it or leave it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It will absolutely change my mind, but why has this not been in the media yet? That makes me a little skeptical. Especially, after Bush just claimed the war was due to faulty intelligence.

Bush was talking about the WMD intel not the intel on the Iraqi-terrorism links.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh, that's what you're on about.
That was in early 2003.

They've held fundraisers in Washington DC. The Chariman of President's Defense Policy Advisory Board was a keynote speaker at one their fundraisers.

How can a group opposed to Islamic theocratic rule in Iran be equated to a radical Islamic terrorist group? It's like saying that our war on terrorism would include organizations; such as, the IRA.

That's why I never really liked the euphamism of war on terrorism, because terrorism isn't the enemy it's the tactic used by the enemy and that enemy is the radical Islamic terrorists opposed to any non-Muslim controlled states.

If you show me where this group has attacked U.S. interests or that of our Democratic allies I'd be more inclined to agree with you on this point.


EDIT: OK I did a little studying on this group and it says that originally they were Islamic-Marxists and were the main backers of the Ayatollah in the original revolution against the Shaw, however, they abandoned support for the Iranian regime because they felt the regime had abandoned the goals of the revolution which sought to bring into line Marxist and Islamic tennants into one form of Government that was still more or less free, however, the Clerics ended up taking over and forming a theocracy, plus this group claims to have since made a reversel and now claims to be in support of a liberal Democracy rather than a Marxist-Islamic state. I'm not sure if that claim is true and I'm not sure how wise it would be to support them and I can't find anything more recent on them past a ''92 State Department analysis.

A) Have they been taken off the terrorist watch list?

B) If so why?

C) If it is true that they support Democracy in Iran why shouldn't we support them, in your opinion?


I would also like to add that one of the main goals of the Iranian revolution was to bring Democracy and liberation to Iran albeit a false Marxist style Democracy, that's why their people were so pissed at the U.S. in the first place because we supported the dictatorial Shaw because he was opposed to the Soviets but after the revolutionaries ousted the Shaw the Muslim clerics took over and turned out to be just as bad if not worse than the Shaw.

It sounds to me that these people are freedom fighters not terrorists.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It will absolutely change my mind, but why has this not been in the media yet? That makes me a little skeptical. Especially, after Bush just claimed the war was due to faulty intelligence.

Well the story just broke like three days ago at the Weekly Standard and it has been on Fox News. Plus this assertion flys in the face of the assertions that the liberal media have been making for the last three years so I doubt that they would want to put the egg on their own faces; furthermoe, at this point we're taking Hayes at his word and the word of his sources and the media is probably waiting for the official documents to be released so as they can fact check them for themselves, however, with 11 separate sources and photos etc, it seems like a pretty credible story but I will wait for the documents to be released before I state the Hayes assertion as fact.

 

[alphieb]

Well the story just broke like three days ago at the Weekly Standard and it has been on Fox News. Plus this assertion flys in the face of the assertions that the liberal media have been making for the last three years so I doubt that they would want to put the egg on their own faces; furthermoe, at this point we're taking Hayes at his word and the word of his sources and the media is probably waiting for the official documents to be released so as they can fact check them for themselves, however, with 11 separate sources and photos etc, it seems like a pretty credible story but I will wait for the documents to be released before I state the Hayes assertion as fact.

"Fox News" You mean it actually came from a bleeding heart right wing news station, what a shock.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

"Fox News" You mean it actually came from a bleeding heart right wing news station, what a shock.

No they were just the first to interview Hayes, Hayes broke the story at the Weekly Standard, it's not going to stop there, and anyways are you saying that if it comes from Fox that it inversly is automatically false? I don't think that's very fair considering the fact that when you people give me articles from CNN, MSNBC, NYT's,, the LA Times, or just about every media outlet and news publication in the country, I don't automatically dismiss it off hand as liberal propoganda, even though it usually is.

Oh and UCLA had done a research study proving my assertion that the majority of the media leans to the left, the study also found that Fox News is actually centrist and only looks right wing through the forced perspective of the liberal atmosphere found in the rest of the media.

 

[oldreliable67]

Any additional insights into the depth (or lack thereof) of Saddam's relationships with Islamic radical groups are to be valued. But as I read some of the posts here, I keep getting a feeling that we're trying to answer that age-old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is noboby there to hear it, does it really make a sound?"

Hayes and others like him are still looking for the proverbial "smoking gun"; the unexploited docs remain what might be their last and best opportunity to find a rationale for the invasion of Iraq that will forcibly diminish the volume of critics of the war. But even if the docs do contain uncontrovertible evidence of Iraqi training and funding of Islamic radical terrorists, but nothing beyond that? Confirmation of that would be valuable in and of itself, but it would not be the holy grail being sought by this group: still unanswered - to their satisfaction - would be the question of an al Qaeda/Iraqi operational relationship.

What if the whole enchilada is found? Definitive evidence of both a training and an operational relationship? After the initial round of gleeful "I told you so" from Bush supporters, we might expect a new round of the 'blame game'. Among other reactions, critics are likely to see this evidence as further proof of the failure of US pre-war intelligence. James Risen, in his new book, wrote, "No other institution failed in its mission as completely during the Bush years as did the CIA." This kind of evidence, if uncovered, can only reinforce that notion.

Furthermore, as Gunny as alluded to, there could be info in those docs that bring to light more extensive state-sponsoring of Islamic radicals by other ME countries, perhaps to the point of putting an unwelcome, glaring spotlight on some that we would prefer to let alone - for the present.

On balance, more information will be better than less, regardless of who it might help or hurt. But, be careful what you wish for...?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If you show me where this group has attacked U.S. interests or that of our Democratic allies I'd be more inclined to agree with you on this point.

Other than the page full of links I already directed you to? The page that discusses how they assassinated Americans and fought against the US in 2003? Other than about how they helped Hussein fill the mass graves?

EDIT: OK I did a little studying on this group and it says that originally they were Islamic-Marxists and were the main backers of the Ayatollah in the original revolution against the Shaw, however, they abandoned support for the Iranian regime because they felt the regime had abandoned the goals of the revolution which sought to bring into line Marxist and Islamic tennants into one form of Government that was still more or less free...

They were outmaneuvered politically and were denied positions in the new bureaucracy of govt. After that, they split w/ the Ayatollah et al. Then they were imprisoned and violently purged from the rank and file.

... plus this group claims to have since made a reversel and now claims to be in support of a liberal Democracy rather than a Marxist-Islamic state. I'm not sure if that claim is true ...

Since this change was made via fiat rather than through conferences and congresses of the group many othe folks doubt the truth of the claim as well. However, the claim is a great tool for gathering cash from Americans.

A) Have they been taken off the terrorist watch list?

Nope. As a matter of fact, more of their front groups have been added.

C) If it is true that they support Democracy in Iran...

I suspect that they support some sort of something that'd be christenend democratic by the MeK.

...why shouldn't we support them, in your opinion?

They lack popular support in Iran. The lost the support they had, their counter-revolutionary 'street-cred' when they sided w/ Hussein against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. In Iran they're called the Monafeqin-e Khalq instead of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Monafeqin means hypocrite and has religious overtones akin to treasonous/traitors.

I would also like to add that one of the main goals of the Iranian revolution was to bring Democracy and liberation to Iran albeit a false Marxist style Democracy, that's why their people were so pissed at the U.S. in the first place because we supported the dictatorial Shaw because he was opposed to the Soviets but after the revolutionaries ousted the Shaw the Muslim clerics took over and turned out to be just as bad if not worse than the Shaw.

Welll don't forget that we also helped depose the govt that came before the Shah. There's still lingering resentment over Operation Ajax.
Further, whereas the the level of freedom and corruption may arguably be simialr under both the Shah and the mullahs, the mullahs rule is more of one of law rather than the Shah's cupidity.

It sounds to me that these people are freedom fighters not terrorists.

That's what they call themselves. Their version of their history is truly glorious and heroic. It tends to vary w/ the accounts of other observers though.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Other than the page full of links I already directed you to? The page that discusses how they assassinated Americans and fought against the US in 2003? Other than about how they helped Hussein fill the mass graves?

They were outmaneuvered politically and were denied positions in the new bureaucracy of govt. After that, they split w/ the Ayatollah et al. Then they were imprisoned and violently purged from the rank and file.

Since this change was made via fiat rather than through conferences and congresses of the group many othe folks doubt the truth of the claim as well. However, the claim is a great tool for gathering cash from Americans.

Nope. As a matter of fact, more of their front groups have been added.

I suspect that they support some sort of something that'd be christenend democratic by the MeK.

They lack popular support in Iran. The lost the support they had, their counter-revolutionary 'street-cred' when they sided w/ Hussein against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. In Iran they're called the Monafeqin-e Khalq instead of the Mojahedin-e Khalq. Monafeqin means hypocrite and has religious overtones akin to treasonous/traitors.

Welll don't forget that we also helped depose the govt that came before the Shah. There's still lingering resentment over Operation Ajax.
Further, whereas the the level of freedom and corruption may arguably be simialr under both the Shah and the mullahs, the mullahs rule is more of one of law rather than the Shah's cupidity.

That's what they call themselves. Their version of their history is truly glorious and heroic. It tends to vary w/ the accounts of other observers though.

Alright here's the thing you said that we're supporting this organization as if that was official U.S. policy when in actuality the DoD is actively targeting them and they are still on the terrorist watch list so my question how is it that the United States government is supporting this group at all? Does Bush the government send them weapons, funds, or aid them with logistics??? Just how exactly is the U.S. supporting them?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Alright here's the thing you said that we're supporting this organization as if that was official U.S. policy when in actuality the DoD is actively targeting them and they are still on the terrorist watch list so my question how is it that the United States government is supporting this group at all? Does Bush the government send them weapons, funds, or aid them with logistics??? Just how exactly is the U.S. supporting them?

Here's an example in addition to what I have already noted - that the chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board helped them raise funds ...


Iranian 'terror group' divides Washington
By JOHN P. GRAMLICH

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization ... enjoys widespread support on Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. military has allowed the MeK to maintain an operational training facility in Iraq...

... the Defense Department does not openly support the MeK, but views the organization as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention," ... the determination that the MeK is entitled to protected status was made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
... the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prevent the United States from prosecuting any would-be "terrorists" at Camp Ashraf -- and American authorities have not done so.
​

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's an example in addition to what I have already noted - that the chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board helped them raise funds ...


Iranian 'terror group' divides Washington
By JOHN P. GRAMLICH

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq organization ... enjoys widespread support on Capitol Hill. In addition, the U.S. military has allowed the MeK to maintain an operational training facility in Iraq...

... the Defense Department does not openly support the MeK, but views the organization as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention," ... the determination that the MeK is entitled to protected status was made by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
... the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prevent the United States from prosecuting any would-be "terrorists" at Camp Ashraf -- and American authorities have not done so.
​

From your own words: the Defense Department does not openly support the MeK,

From the article: The State Department maintains that the MeK is a terrorist organization and should be identified alongside groups such as al-Qaida and Hamas.

The Fourth Geneva Convention guarantees a number of basic rights to MeK members in Iraq, including the right to protection from danger or violence and the right not be repatriated to Iran -- where the group's members could face torture or death -- said Steven Schneebaum, counsel for the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents

But legal experts said the Fourth Geneva Convention does not prevent the United States from prosecuting any would-be "terrorists" at Camp Ashraf --

What legal experts???

Two Members of Congress hardly qualifies as Official U.S. policy:

December by Rep. Ed Towns, D-N.Y., to the Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents, an advocacy group that works to protect the camp from Iranian reprisals. In the statement, which the committee posted on its website, Towns said, "We must take meaningful steps to provide safety and security to both Iraqi and PMOI members in Iraq."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., has also expressed support for the MEK in the past and has said that the Clinton administration only added the group's name to the State Department's list of terrorist organizations in the first place to "curry favor with the Iranian regime," according to news sources.

Knowing Clinton I wouldn't put it past him considering his actions in N. Korea and his boot licking of Kim jon Il.

And why exactly should I believe you over two Representatives of the House on opposite sides of the isle who say the exact same thing???


Furthermore; in the last 15 years who has this group been targeting??? The Iranian regime??? If so I'm all for it, ever hear that old idiom the enemy of my enemy is my friend?


While controversy surrounds Camp Ashraf and the MeK, one observer said U.S. support for the organization in its fight against the Iranian regime -- whether implicit or explicit -- only worsens relations between Washington and Tehran.

Good! Screw the Clerics and screw Tehran.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Book alleges CIA inadvertently gave Iran formula for nuclear bomb
Posted on Wed, Jan. 04, 2006

... the United States missed an opportunity to seize top al-Qaida henchmen, including Osama bin Laden's son, from Iran.

In exchange, Tehran wanted the United States to hand over members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a terrorist organization based in Baghdad.

The White House was bullish on the swap, but hard-liners at the Pentagon put the kibosh on any deal...
​

Just general info from the Heritage foundation from late last year, December 14, 2005:

The United States should not try to play favorites among the various Iranian opposition groups, but should instead encourage them to cooperate under the umbrella of the broadest possible coalition. However, Washington should rule out support for the People’s Mujahideen Organization (PMO or Mujahideen Khalq) and its front group, the National Council of Resistance.

The PMO is a non-democratic Marxist terrorist group that was part of the broad revolutionary coalition that overthrew the Shah but then was purged in 1981, after which it aligned itself with Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. While this cult-like group is one of the best-organized exile orga*nizations, it has little support inside Iran because of its alliance with archenemy Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War.

Moreover, the PMO resorted to terrorism against the Shah’s regime and was responsible for the assas*sinations of at least four American military officers in Iran during the 1970s. It demonstrated in sup*port of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and against the release of the American hostages in 1981.​

 

[Saboteur]

Steven Hayes a journalist for the Weekly Standard says he has obtained information from 11 separate sources, that say there exists classified documents proving that Saddam Hussein recruited and trained thousands of Radical Islamic radicals within Iraq at Salman Pak. He is pushing for these documents to be released and he says that he has made some in roads and hopes that these documents are released within two weeks.

If the documents are released and if they do infact prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was an operational relationship between Saddam and AlQaeda (as many of us evil naive Conservatives have claimed this whole time) will it change your opinion of the war in Iraq?

You can read more about this breaking story here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

I voted I already support the war.

I question the authenticity of the documents that you bring up here. Both Predistent Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that there 'was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qeada and that this claim was not part of the rationale for entering into war with Iraq'. You watched the V.P. debates in '04 right? You heard Cheney right? He made a statement similar to the above in italics right?

So if these documents come out are the Pres and VP admitting to lying if they support this and do all of a sudden include this in their rationale for war?

 

[hipsterdufus]

My friend the left does not care......If we found Nuclear Weapons in Iraq ready for delivery to the USA it would make no difference.......This is all about hatred for President Bush......When it comes to our liberal and left wing friends that is all that counts..........

I disagree with you 100%. I wanted to kick ass as much as the next guy after 9/11! Iraq is ready to nuke us? Let's go!

Now that it's a fraud - it's a different story my friend. We didn't go to war because of a supposed Al Quaida / Iraq connection. We started a pre-emptive war to avoid a "mushroom cloud" in the US. It was a big lie.

Our nation's grief over 9/11 is not a justification for the war in Iraq.

 

[Saboteur]

My friend the left does not care......If we found Nuclear Weapons in Iraq ready for delivery to the USA it would make no difference.......This is all about hatred for President Bush......When it comes to our liberal and left wing friends that is all that counts..........

No it's not about hatred from the left. If we found nuclear weapons in Iraq we'd be surprised, especially after President Bush said 'whoops! guess we were wrong' in regard to WMD's.

The truth is what counts. After the election your pundits told Democrates to 'move on, you lost'. I suggest you take your advice... Move on, you won.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I voted I already support the war.

I question the authenticity of the documents that you bring up here. Both Predistent Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that there 'was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qeada and that this claim was not part of the rationale for entering into war with Iraq'. You watched the V.P. debates in '04 right? You heard Cheney right? He made a statement similar to the above in italics right?

So if these documents come out are the Pres and VP admitting to lying if they support this and do all of a sudden include this in their rationale for war?

There's a difference between what you can prove and what you suspect. I am not at ALL surprised that Iraq (apparently) trained terrorists and (apparently) did have a working relationship w/ AQ. I'm sure the administration suspected this as well, and is similarly not surprised.

Could these claims be made before the war? No, as there was no concrete support. But now that there is, no one should be surprised.

 

[Saboteur]

There's a difference between what you can prove and what you suspect. I am not at ALL surprised that Iraq (apparently) trained terrorists and (apparently) did have a working relationship w/ AQ. I'm sure the administration did as well.

Could these claims be made before the war? No, as there was no concrete support. But now that there is, no one should be surprised.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised either if these were valid documents. But I should hope that the white house would have had a good rationale in the first place not after the fact of invasion.

If still less people support the war than before are you going to lose sleep over it? Why do you care if the nation supports the war or not? Our troops are there now and they're doing a great job and are not going anywhere until the administration sees fit to move them out. There is no question in that. What is in question however is whether or not our troops are there for a good reason.

These new "documents" just seem to be a desperate attempt to justify the deaths of 2,000 good americans and 100,000 innocent Iraqis. And the spending of billions of dollars.

Strike preemptively first, find rationale later. Dumb:roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I voted I already support the war.

I question the authenticity of the documents that you bring up here. Both Predistent Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that there 'was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qeada and that this claim was not part of the rationale for entering into war with Iraq'. You watched the V.P. debates in '04 right? You heard Cheney right? He made a statement similar to the above in italics right?

So if these documents come out are the Pres and VP admitting to lying if they support this and do all of a sudden include this in their rationale for war?

Oh really?

From the Joint Resolution of Congress for the Authorization of the use of force against Iraq:

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq


(10) 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There's a difference between what you can prove and what you suspect. I am not at ALL surprised that Iraq (apparently) trained terrorists and (apparently) did have a working relationship w/ AQ. I'm sure the administration suspected this as well, and is similarly not surprised.

Could these claims be made before the war? No, as there was no concrete support. But now that there is, no one should be surprised.

These claims were made in the Joint Resolution of Congress for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq look up at my last post.

 

[Saboteur]

Oh really?

From the Joint Resolution of Congress for the Authorization of the use of force against Iraq:

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq


(10) 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;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Oh yes I am very aware of this document. Which is why I was confused during the debate between Sen. Edwards and the Vice President during the '04 elections. V.P. Cheney did say that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. And that he didn't know where Edwards came up with the idea that he (Cheney) had said anything like that.

Now, one of these 2 positions is a lie. But don't question me about it.

Why don't you ask your beloved administration which one is the lie? Was Saddam helping Al-Qaeda or wasn't he?

Dick Cheney and President Bush have both made each statement in contradiction of themselves. And that's the only thing we know is true right now.

 

[Saboteur]

These claims were made in the Joint Resolution of Congress for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq look up at my last post.

Yes and because the powerless Democrats voted to go into Iraq it is their fault and their lie right?