Interesting. No weapons of mass destruction eh?UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.
Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
While some military goods that disappeared from Iraq after the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, including missile engines, later turned up in scrap yards in the Middle East and Europe, none of the equipment or material known to the IAEA as potentially useful in making nuclear bombs has turned up yet, ElBaradei said.
Using that logic, purhaps we are all idiots. I voted for 2 senators and a congressman that all voted for the resolution to go to war. With the same intelligence that Bush had.Your an idiot, this report proves that the handling of Iraq was poor by the Bush administration.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
[/font][/font]
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act ( Public Law 105-330 ) 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;
vauge said:
These explosives that went missing ARE NOT WMD's They are conventional explosives that compiled with a whole bunch of other stuff like the "yellow cake" that Bush and his people claimed Saddam was buying Nigar combined together would make WMD's. But these are not WMD's. They are, however, most undoubtly being using at this very moment to blow the living crap out of some of our fine young men and woman.vauge said:
Well at least someone's finally honest about their reasons for going to war. One down, eh 59 million to go. Freedom's on the march.akyron said:In any case WMD wasn't why I supported the US decision to go to Iraq. I just wanted their oil.
First off what does the act that was enacted under Clinton really have to do with what congress and Bush did concerning the Iraq war in Oct. 2002? Congress on 10-11-2002 passed a resolution 77-23 giving the President authorization to "attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions." Kinda hard to give up what ya ain't got, but? Anyway, goes on to state- "The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed." Also "Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.vauge said:Source: White House
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif][font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
(key word underlined above)
[/font][/font]Here is the authority to pursue the Iraq Liberation Act.
Iraq Liberation Act was under Clintons watch.
If you believe for one second that this act was about DIPLOMACY (based on name alone), then I don't know what to tell yah. Nothing said or done would change your mind to the facts.
[/font]
So, you content that Clinton was going to invade Iraq- he just never got around to it?vauge said:The Iraq Liberation Act proved our position on ousting Saddam. Which was under Clinton. Bush, enacted upon it the authorization to go kick some ass.
In short, this is not Bush's unique idea.
Bush went to finish the job that Clinton started.
Have you read this "Iraq Liberation Act"? This proves your point does it? I just went and read it. I'm begining to suspect that you've been listening to way too much talk radio. Have Rush, O'Rielly and Hannity all simultaneously invaded an orifice of your body and taken over your brain?vauge said:The Iraq Liberation Act proved our position on ousting Saddam. Which was under Clinton. Bush, enacted upon it the authorization to go kick some ass.
In short, this is not Bush's unique idea.
Bush went to finish the job that Clinton started.
Yes it gives "the gives authority to "pursue" a course of action" just like we had and continue to have many other such resolutions that created such things as "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty" and other actions to support the advancment of democracy in communist countries and dictatorships around the goble. None of those give the authority to invade any sovereign nations either, just like this didn't. But I appuald you and the right for coming up with the spin. I'm sure the Bush people will be pushing it shortly on legit. news sources as soon as they "rally the base" around it. Great spin well done:applaudvauge said:The Iraq Liberation Act established our position on removing Saddam from power. It does not provide a request to use force. It mandates a position to remove Saddam from power and gives authority to "pursue" a course of action. The Clinton administration only flew over and dropped a couple of bombs.
The Iraq Liberation Act was then acted upon as a requirement for the "W" plan to request force in 2002.
Bush's administration requested the use of force on TOP of the Liberation act.
Yes, I have read it.
Iraq Liberation Act
These two acts are not completely independant.
Definition - action taken.
[/font]Are you saying that Iraq Liberation Act was never considered in any shape or form?[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif] 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;
Did not know that... thank you.[/font]By the way H.W. Bush and his Admin. voted agaisnt holding Saddam accountable for the use of WMD's upon his on people when the UN tried to do so in 1986:
I'm not saying it wasn't considered. I'm just saying that pointing to it and saying it proves your point that invading Iraq was the right thing to do is complete spin. But I have no doubt there's a ton of people out there that will be happy to buy that sale.vauge said:(looking for a "spin" smilie - attempted to make one a few minutes ago, but it was very ugly)
[/font]Are you saying that Iraq Liberation Act was never considered in any shape or form?
[font=arial, helvetica, sans serif]
Did not know that... thank you.
Maybe. But I sure wish they would have at least, at least, at a minimum, finished the job of going and getting bin Laden. 10,000 troops committed to get bin Laden and 100,000 plus to nab Saddam. I didn't like those numbers then, and I surely don't like them now, after reading the 9-11 report.vauge said:I think that if Bush knew what he does today - it would not have happened when it did. But, the removal of Saddam was inevitable - regardless of timing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?