« Happy Birthday to the Ice Queen! | Main | Obvious to Anyone with more than Two Brain Cells »
July 07, 2006
Arguing with Ignorance
I find that a lot of time and space is wasted on this site (especially in the comments section) by people who completely disregard primary source documents and only respond to how they feel about headlines they see on the View, MSM outlets or in their leftist trash rag newspaper.
Please read it. You've been whining for three years about lies and deaths and such and probably never read the darn thing. Here are the assumptions and justifications that everyone says were "lies":
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; TRUE
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism; TRUE (also notice that Iraq entered into a cease-fire agreement, NOT a PEACE Treaty; technically we were still at war with Iraq from 1991 but said we would not invade if Saddam lived up to his UN obligations)
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated; TRUE
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; TRUE
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235); TRUE
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, TRUE
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; TRUE
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people; TRUE
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; TRUE
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; TRUE (Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002)
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens; TRUE (Abu Nidal Organization)
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; TRUE
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; WASH - this language is iffy at best because it discusses "RISK" which changes with better intelligence; obviously the RISK is low now that we know he did not have stockpiles of WMD
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; Mostly TRUE - except for the "development of weapons fo mass destruction" but correct with obstruction of UN inspectors and repression of its population
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"; TRUE (Iraq is now compliant with all these Resolutions)
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"; TRUE
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; TRUE
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable"; TRUE
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; Support for Terrorism - TRUE; Development of WMD - NOT TRUE
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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 or harbored such persons or organizations; VERY WEAK TRUE - Iraq harbored Zarqawi who was not involved with September 11, 2001, but was a member of al Qaeda or an affiliate group.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations; IBID
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 TRUE
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region; TRUE
Posted by Aaron at July 7, 2006 10:23 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lifelikepundits.com/cgi-bin/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/2553
Comments
War Iraq a threat to America?
Posted by: salvage at July 8, 2006 11:32 AM
Was Iraq a threat to America?
I guess my typo confused you into not answering.
Posted by: salvage at July 10, 2006 11:16 AM
What is your definition of threat?
Was he supposed to have tanks rolling across Mexico ready to invade Texas to be a threat?
There is a difference between 'threat' and 'risk'. If you want to talk about threat, there are very few "threats" that could destroy America (except, of course, the Bush Regime!): nukes, bio pandemic, etc.
Was Saddam a risk to our security? You better believe it. You're only able to say Saddam was not such a great risk now that we know that he didn't have WMD. But we didn't KNOW that before we invaded. We had a minority of people in the intelligence community who didn't think so.
They turned out to be right, but if Bush believed the minority opinion, he would have been derelect in his duties to defend us.
Posted by: Aaron at July 10, 2006 02:54 PM
What is your definition of threat?
Um the same as everyone's
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
What are you? Clinton?
>Was Saddam a risk to our security? You better believe it.
How?
Posted by: salvage at July 10, 2006 03:20 PM
The democrat party is a threat right now and should be destroyed. Tired of hearing all their damn lies , shut the hell up cry babies.
Posted by: RobLACa. at July 11, 2006 06:41 AM