Are These Memos Legitimate?

[teacher]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Okay, but what's in it for us?

Is that rhetorical or your litmus test for action? How about this. Who cares what is in it for us. It is the right thing to do. After Iraq let's go free the next hell hole. And so on. Until the whole world's nations people can decide for themselves the course their nation takes. That's right, cram freedom down their throughts.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Is that rhetorical or your litmus test for action?

I'm sort of old school in that I think there should be compelling national interests before we put our soldiers in harms' way.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I suppose Simon W. Moon is looking for answers. Why don’t you give this a read Simon, it might answer some of your questions:

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq

……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 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 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,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

Be sure to let me know what part of this you think Congress lied about.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Also, be sure to try and explain how that bit about the "repression of [his] civilian population" got in there.

Do you really take me for the type who just sits around dreaming this stuff up?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Be sure to let me know what part of this you think Congress lied about.
Also, be sure to try and explain how that bit about the "repression of [his] civilian population" got in there.

Why do you think that I said Congress lied about something?

Why would you like me to explain about the repression bit? Is your request somehow related to Mr. Wolfowitz's remarks?

Do you really take me for the type who just sits around dreaming this stuff up?

Doesn't really seem to matter what I take you for.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Why do you think that I said Congress lied about something?

If you think Bush lied you must think Congress lied too.

Why would you like me to explain about the repression bit?

Gee, I dunno, maybe I’d like to hear you say this war wasn’t only about the WMD.

I prefer to hear you say Clinton had less justification for his reasons for going to war with Kosovo than Bush had in going to war with Iraq but I highly doubt you can get your mind around such a complex issue considering the nature of your past posts.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Oh. Kerry voted for the use of force against Iraq too.

Did you vote for Kerry?

 

[Fantasea]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

That doesn't make any sense either. Many times the right has pointed out that the Dems in congress believed Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. That the Dems also voted to give the President the authority to go to war. I'm certain I've read posts of your’s on this forum that say that make that very point. So it doesn't make any sense to now be claiming that the Dems didn't believe what Bush et el were telling them. What scares me is that so many are so willing to be so misled so easily.

Could it be the Kool Aid syndrome?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (PL 105-338) (the Clinton years)
……

October 31, 1998

An Act
To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Iraq Liberation Act of 1998'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

(4) On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded and began a 7 month occupation of Kuwait, killing and committing numerous abuses against Kuwaiti civilians, and setting Kuwait's oil wells ablaze upon retreat.

(5) Hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and Iraq subsequently accepted the ceasefire conditions specified in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991) requiring Iraq, among other things, to disclose fully and permit the dismantlement of its weapons of mass destruction programs and submit to long-term monitoring and verification of such dismantlement.

........

Any more questions?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Any more questions?

Questions? No! Comments, YES! Clinton never planned to or actually sent 150,000 Americans into Iraq. He never started a war. He never lied about the reason for going to Iraq. He never based his raisin d'etre for the war on lies.

The Kosovo comparison is lame. This is Iraq, and it should not be compared with anything else. It should be judged on its own merits, period. The convoluted logic of comparing it to other conflicts is simply a smoke screen to take the focus away from the fact that the Iraq war is a disaster, a nightmare, a mistake of the highest order.

There was a clear process under way in 2003 that was working. The weapons inspectors, unlike the CIA and Pentagon got it right, completely and utterly right. When Bush and his War Makers invaded Iraq we were told that it was due to the following by Bush on March 13, 2003 in a letter to Congress:

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 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 terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Read it again? Those are THE reasons that Bush gave us for attacking Iraq. To protect our national security and to combat terrorism. No mention of liberating Iraq, nothing else. You can make up what you want, but these are the reasons given, period.

Reason one? What was the threat to the USA? That has never, ever been established. Actually it was always dismissed, even before we invaded.

Reason two? The 9-11 Commission clearly proved there was no connection between 9-11 & Saddam & Iraq.

No amount of spin can alter these facts. Bush clearly explained his reasons for attacking Iraq. He was DEAD (1700+ so far) wrong!

There's really no wriggle room for Bush on this one. Even if he really did believe the terrible intelligence he supposedly relied on, that does not justify that the USA was under any threat of attack.

Using your words: Any more questions? Please stop the Kosovo distraction, that has no bearing on this thread, at all. Let's keep to the topic.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Any more questions?

What's your point?
Could you please tie this all together in a way that a poorly educated hillbilly like myself can understand?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Did you vote for Kerry?

No. I've voted for GWB twice.
What's it to ya?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

If you think Bush lied you must think Congress lied too.

So?

Gee, I dunno, maybe I’d like to hear you say this war wasn’t only about the WMD.

It wasn't only about the WMD. It was primarily about the threat to the US from Iraq whhich involved WMD, terrorism and the connection between the two. Outside of the threat to the US from Iraq everything else was lagniappe.

... I highly doubt you can get your mind around such a complex issue considering the nature of your past posts.

Your doubts are the result of you own limitations.

Why do so many try to use Clinton transgressions to justify Bush's?

I repeat: Just because Clinton did something doesn't make it right, a good idea, or in anyway worthy of repetition. Just because Clinton lied under oath does that mean GWB should be excused for doing so as well?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I repeat: Just because Clinton did something doesn't make it right, a good idea, or in anyway worthy of repetition. Just because Clinton lied under oath does that mean GWB should be excused for doing so as well?

Some of the Republicans in this community resort to old habits, Clinton bashing, especially when confronted with all of Bush's glaring mistakes. Instead of rebutting the mistakes we assign to Bush they twist it into a comparison to Clinton.

For the record, I believe Clinton was a great President, and will be regarded in history much better than our current President.

The most glaring difference in the two Presidents is the way the rest of the world looks at them. To this day Clinton is one of the most beloved of all US Presidents while Bush is very possibly the most hated.

The damage that Bush has done to the USA's standing in the world community is large, and growing larger everyday.

As a man who travels around the world for my profession, and having done so since 1988 I can see clearly the differences between Clinton and Bush. Today, traveling as an American I must be much more vigilant, much more cautious. During the Clinton years I never gave a second thought wherever I was traveling to, even the UAE. Today, however, there are places I'm now reluctant to go to or will not go to at all. This is the logistical reality.

The economic reality is that even with a weak dollar (which benefits US exporters) business is significantly down, and has been declining since the Iraq war began. Simply, companies outside of the US are more reluctant to trade with American firms due to Bush and his policies and the rhetoric he vomits out to the world. His threats and cowboy mentality do not play well outside of our borders.

Normally in times that the dollar is weak business like mine boom. We love the weak dollar. This was a basic law of economics....until Bush and his war broke this law....

I find myself having to spend too much time explaining to my customers that Bush does not speak for about half the Americans, that his policies are not the policies of our business. I need to actually do this regularly. Why? No one wants to do business with USA firms for fear that further wars will interfere with their business. Simple economics...sadly created by a simpleton.

 

[FiremanRyan]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

There was a clear process under way in 2003 that was working. The weapons inspectors, unlike the CIA and Pentagon got it right, completely and utterly right. When Bush and his War Makers invaded Iraq we were told that it was due to the following by Bush on March 13, 2003 in a letter to Congress:

while i agree with you for the most part that conflicts are all different and should be treated individually, i dont see why a comparison between Iraq and Kosovo isnt relative. Clinton went on the attack for hazier reasons, accomplished a lot less than Bush in Iraq, and a lot of lives were lost, many innocent. i just think its funny how Dems are up in arms over Iraq yet made very little fuss over Kosovo, which might not have been on such a large scale, but the justifications were just as vague.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

while i agree with you for the most part that conflicts are all different and should be treated individually, i dont see why a comparison between Iraq and Kosovo isnt relative. Clinton went on the attack for hazier reasons, accomplished a lot less than Bush in Iraq, and a lot of lives were lost, many innocent. i just think its funny how Dems are up in arms over Iraq yet made very little fuss over Kosovo, which might not have been on such a large scale, but the justifications were just as vague.

This thread is about Iraq and the memos recently released that prove that Bush's Bunch premeditated this war. They had an agenda and manipulated the facts to meet that agenda. One is free to write whatever here, but the thread is supposed to be about Iraq, not Kosovo.

Perhaps starting a thread re Kosovo would be more appropriate?

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

while i agree with you for the most part that conflicts are all different and should be treated individually, i dont see why a comparison between Iraq and Kosovo isnt relative. Clinton went on the attack for hazier reasons, accomplished a lot less than Bush in Iraq, and a lot of lives were lost, many innocent. i just think its funny how Dems are up in arms over Iraq yet made very little fuss over Kosovo, which might not have been on such a large scale, but the justifications were just as vague.

I agree, I see nothing wrong with making the comparison of how the two wars are treated by Democrats. It is hypocritical to support one and not the other IMO.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I agree, I see nothing wrong with making the comparison of how the two wars are treated by Democrats. It is hypocritical to support one and not the other IMO.

Each war is different and is fought for different purposes.

I also don't recall even one person on this board saying they supported one of them, but not both? To whom are you referring?

Funny how in Kosovo NATO and the UN were also involved but in Iraq it's just the UK....so I guess your theory about supporting one or the other is meaninglesss.

The ONLY reason any of you are even bringing it up is because you want to talk some more about Clinton. I swear I think some of the Republicans in this community have a secret crush on President Clinton! You just can't get enough of him. You seem to be infatuated. Love is in the air....

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

... i dont see why a comparison between Iraq and Kosovo isnt relative.

Sure, a comparison could be relative. On screw up can't justify another though. Just because some people tolerated one screw up in no means that they must tolerate another screw up.
Being "relative" is different than justifying.
Suppose someone totally looked the other way about the Balkans solely because of partisan reasons. This in no way renders future screw up acceptable.
No matter how much of an ass Clinton was and no matter how many people looked the other way for partisan reasons it still doesn't create a free pass for Bush. It just doesn't.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Clinton never planned to or actually sent 150,000 Americans into Iraq. He never started a war. He never lied about the reason for going to Iraq. He never based his raisin d'etre for the war on lies.

Clinton did start a war. He invaded Kosovo. I don’t think he lied about the reasons for doing it but neither did Bush. They both relied on bad intelligence and the end of both wars resulted in the same thing. No WMD for Bush and No genocide for Clinton.

The Kosovo comparison is lame. This is Iraq, and it should not be compared with anything else. It should be judged on its own merits, period. The convoluted logic of comparing it to other conflicts is simply a smoke screen to take the focus away from the fact that the Iraq war is a disaster, a nightmare, a mistake of the highest order.

I’m not comparing the two wars as much as I’m comparing your inconsistencies and double standards. I’m trying to point out your refusal to judge this war fairly.

There was a clear process under way in 2003 that was working.

No there wasn’t. Saddam was still in power and was still making verbal threats against the USA. He was still paying the families of terrorist murderers, still murdering and torturing his own people, still refusing to be honest about what happened to his WMD and would have only reconstituted his armies and weapons to fight another day if we hadn’t taken him out of power.

Read it again? When Bush and his War Makers invaded Iraq we were told that it was due to the following by Bush on March 13, 2003 in a letter to Congress:………..Those are THE reasons that Bush gave us for attacking Iraq. To protect our national security and to combat terrorism. No mention of liberating Iraq, nothing else. You can make up what you want, but these are the reasons given, period.

Fist of all, “ likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” covers a lot more than just our national security or terrorism. I suggest you go read all of the relevant UN resolutions.

Secondly, Bush addressed the nation and said this: “ THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” Link

Reason one? What was the threat to the USA?

Saddam Hussein was the threat.

Reason two? The 9-11 Commission clearly proved there was no connection between 9-11 & Saddam & Iraq.

The 911 commission proved no such thing. The absence of evidence doesn’t prove innocence any more than it proves guilt. That applies to the missing WMD as well. Saying that we didn’t find them doesn’t prove he didn’t have them.

There's really no wriggle room for Bush on this one. Even if he really did believe the terrible intelligence he supposedly relied on, that does not justify that the USA was under any threat of attack.

Considering Saddam’s proven support for international terrorism and the fact that he had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States, together with his threats to commit terrorism against the USA, I’d say he was a threat whether he hid, destroyed or shipped hid WMD to another country.

The fact that Saddam was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack is reason enough to consider him a threat.

The fact that in 1994 Saddam threatened to use his remaining unconventional agents, biological and chemical, for terrorism in America, or in missiles delivered against his enemies in the region if and when he became fed up with sanctions is reason enough to consider him a threat.

Please stop the Kosovo distraction, that has no bearing on this thread, at all. Let's keep to the topic.

Kosovo is very relevant to this thread because it was another war where a president made similar claims and found similar results (almost nothing) at the end of the war.

It’s relevant because you are trying to pass moral judgment on the current president with a different standard than you used with the other president and I intend to point out your double standard whenever I feel like it. You’re a Bush hater first and foremost and it’s clouding your ability to consider this issue logically.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I agree, I see nothing wrong with making the comparison of how the two wars are treated by Democrats. It is hypocritical to support one and not the other IMO.

Compare all you like. No amount of hypocrisy on the part of anybody justifies the war. Even if the Dems are the most hypocritical people ever to walk the face of the planet for all time to come, it still has no bearing upon the transgressions of Team Bush.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Some of the Republicans in this community resort to old habits, Clinton bashing, especially when confronted with all of Bush's glaring mistakes. Instead of rebutting the mistakes we assign to Bush they twist it into a comparison to Clinton.

I’m not a Clinton basher. I actually liked him. If I were to use your standard for “lying about the reasons for going to war” I would think he lied but I’m not that partisan. If we ever really talk about Clinton, you’ll see that this statement doesn’t apply to me.

The most glaring difference in the two Presidents is the way the rest of the world looks at them.

Didn’t you just chastise me for comparing the war in Kosovo and the war in Iraq? Then you post a Clinton vs. Bush popularity contest with your very next post?

How disingenuous can you get?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I don’t think he lied about the reasons for doing it but neither did Bush. They both relied on bad intelligence...

I have conclusively refuted this here: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"
Feel free to come by and dispute if you like.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html Saddam Hussein was the threat.

I have conclusively refuted this here: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"
Feel free to come by and dispute if you like.

The absence of evidence doesn’t prove innocence any more than it proves guilt. That applies to the missing WMD as well. Saying that we didn’t find them doesn’t prove he didn’t have them.

Same reasoning applies to BigFoot and the Loch Ness monster. Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean that they don't exist.

The fact that Saddam was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

If you would be so kind, would you please reveal your sources for this? Is it some more of the discredited Mylroie stuff?

It’s relevant because you are trying to pass moral judgment on the current president with a different standard than you used with the other president and I intend to point out your double standard whenever I feel like it. You’re a Bush hater first and foremost and it’s clouding your ability to consider this issue logically.

No matter how much of a putz Champs may or may not be, it in no way alters Team Bush's transgressions.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

This thread is about Iraq and the memos recently released that prove that Bush's Bunch premeditated this war. They had an agenda and manipulated the facts to meet that agenda. One is free to write whatever here, but the thread is supposed to be about Iraq, not Kosovo.

Is that why you just posted a totally off topic memoir of world opinion about Bush?

Like I said, disingenuous.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Clinton did start a war. He invaded Kosovo.

Rewriting history are we? There already was a civil war going on and then NATO & the UN handled the war, and we were part of that coalition. I must have been asleep the day he sent in 150,000 American soldiers? NATO includes countries like France & Germany....whose fighting alongside us now?

I’m not comparing the two wars as much as I’m comparing your inconsistencies and double standards. I’m trying to point out your refusal to judge this war fairly.

HUH? I guess I need to write this again....maybe this time it will register? I was against the Balkans war. Is there something unclear to you about this statement?

No there wasn’t. Saddam was still in power and was still making verbal threats against the USA. He was still paying the families of terrorist murderers, still murdering and torturing his own people, still refusing to be honest about what happened to his WMD and would have only reconstituted his armies and weapons to fight another day if we hadn’t taken him out of power.

That's a crock, period. He was castrated, he had nothing, and hadn't had anything since 1995. What you've written is untrue, it's a myth.

Fist of all, “ likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq” covers a lot more than just our national security or terrorism. I suggest you go read all of the relevant UN resolutions.

I KNEW you would have to fall back on that, and I KNEW you would ignore the rest of his letter. HOORAY!

Secondly, Bush addressed the nation and said this: “ THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” Link

Did you read his OFFICIAL letter to the Congress or not? If liberating Iraq was so important why did he leave it out of his letter? Faux pas? I know! It's was his lack of intelligence again, right? Damn that CIA for not telling him that we were invading to free Iraq! Damn!

Saddam Hussein was the threat.

It truly is amazing that someone would actually and truly believe this. It make me think of what W.C. Fields once said:

There's a sucker born every minute.

The 911 commission proved no such thing. The absence of evidence doesn’t prove innocence any more than it proves guilt. That applies to the missing WMD as well. Saying that we didn’t find them doesn’t prove he didn’t have them.

:spin: I'm getting dizzy now....the fact that we never found anything means that he had them? Proving, as we did that there was nothing there means that he had them? OMG!

Considering Saddam’s proven support for international terrorism and the fact that he had no problem working with other fundamentalist groups based on nothing more than their mutual hatred for the United States, together with his threats to commit terrorism against the USA, I’d say he was a threat whether he hid, destroyed or shipped hid WMD to another country.

Prove it for God's sake! Otherwise it is nothing, nothing, nothing.

The fact that Saddam was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack is reason enough to consider him a threat.

Prove this one too....

The fact that in 1994 Saddam threatened to use his remaining unconventional agents, biological and chemical, for terrorism in America, or in missiles delivered against his enemies in the region if and when he became fed up with sanctions is reason enough to consider him a threat.

HUH? We know that after 1995 he had nothing left yet we are to take his threat (prove this one too, please) from 1994 as the reason to have 1700+ Americans killed?

It’s relevant because you are trying to pass moral judgment on the current president with a different standard than you used with the other president and I intend to point out your double standard whenever I feel like it.

Sorry, total disconnect here. How do YOU know what my positions are re Clinton?

Read the letter from Bush to Congress from 3-13-03. That is his position, period.

That letter will go down in history as the single document that points to the incredible failure of this man. The only President to ever start a war, and he did so without a real reason. That is his legacy that he will leave behind.