Nutrider99
02-04-2006, 07:53 AM
* There seems to be a rather large contingent of Americans that are living under the impression that Bush lied in order to get us into the war with Iraq. If this is true, then the lies MUST be found in the use of force resolution. To avoid giving credence to those who would claim misrepresentation, I will leave the verbiage intact.
Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)
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;
* Hmm. Ok. Hard to find a lie here.
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;
* Could this be the 1991 cease-fire agreement? That mythical thing that liberals want to pretend never existed? We didn’t just call it quits and go home. There were CONDITIONS placed on the cease-fire. There was NEVER a peace declaration nor was there a formal cessation of hostilities. It was ONLY a cease-fire.
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;
* Ah, here is the lie. Hans Blix and his crew must have been manipulated by the governor of Texas who, at that time, had neither been asked to run nor had announced his intent to run for president. All of the UN inspectors must have been in a conspiracy with Bush. Also, every intelligence agency in the world was part of the conspiracy hatched by the governor of Texas.
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;
* I seem to remember this happening. How could this have happened, though if Saddam pledged to verifiably destroy the WMD? After all, wasn’t Hussein the aggrieved party in all of this? Wasn’t he the duly elected president of Iraq?
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);
* This has to be a lie. Iraq was always in compliance according to the anti-war crowd. Hussein secretly destroyed the WMD and notified the governor of Texas, although he failed to notify the sitting US president. Right, D.U.?
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 an 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;
* The programs were there, the capability was there and certain terrorists were there. However, Osama bin Laden wasn’t there, so we can’t consider Hussein to be supporting terrorists if he isn’t having tea and crumpets with bin Laden. Abu Abas, Abu Nidal, funds to Palestinians terrorists… that doesn’t count. Also, the fact that BOTH the Kay report and the Dulfer report clearly stated that Iraq was seeking nuclear warheads and long range missiles should not be counted on when we have sound minds like Michael Moore contradicting them.
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;
* This can’t be true. Hussein is a peace loving philanthropist. Bush is the lying murderer.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
* Still bringing THAT up. Damn. Gas a few thousand Kurds and you’re branded for life!
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;
* That shouldn’t count. After all, Bush was a Republican. Hussein didn’t try to kill Clinton, so his old crimes are ancient news. Iraqi missiles never actually killed any of our pilots, and even if they had, they shouldn’t have been over Iraqi air space, right?
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;
* AHAA!! The big lie. Members of al Qaida were NOT in Iraq. Okay, maybe they were, but bin laden wasn’t, so it doesn’t count. How does this link Iraq to 9/11? Supposedly, that’s what the Michael Moore’s of the world are saying. We were lied to about Iraq being behind the 9/11 attacks.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
* Shouldn’t we be seeing some lies by now? After all, if Bush lied to get us into war and this is Bush’s use of force declaration, shouldn’t some of the lies have shown up at this point?
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;
* Okay… but this doesn’t say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
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;
* This could be misleading. Just because a mass murderer has sworn to kill you in the past, it doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy in the present.
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;
* This could be considered a lie. Sure, the UN authorized force, but they didn’t really mean it.
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';
* Just because Congress authorizes a military action, it doesn’t mean it isn’t entirely the president’s doing, right?
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';
* We’re running short, here, libs. We need a lie fast!
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;
* Clinton may have made the liberation of Iraq our national policy, but that didn’t mean he meant it!
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';
* By action they though Bush meant stamping his feet and denouncing them in the harshest of terms, not employing the evil military.
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;
*This brings about a question. If we never found the WMD, even if we have footage of them being transported to Syria, did they ever exist? If the WMD never existed, then how could Iraq have ever been a threat? Ignoring the fact that Iraq used WMD and the UN verified the existence of WMD, how do we know there WERE WMD?
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;
* This says INCLUDING nations who aided in the 9/11 attacks, but not limited to such nations. It’s hard to find a lie here.
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
* It’s no fair citing facts and law that gives Bush authority over Congress. This was supposedly a unilateral action but the president alone.
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…
* I’m sorry. This is the Use of Force Resolution. This IS the document of lies that got us into Iraq. Maybe I just overlooked them. Maybe some of you could help point them out to me. I didn’t see any lies. If there are no lies in this document, then the lies are coming from the lips of the democreeps.
Congressional Resolution on Iraq (Passed by House and Senate October 2002)
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;
* Hmm. Ok. Hard to find a lie here.
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;
* Could this be the 1991 cease-fire agreement? That mythical thing that liberals want to pretend never existed? We didn’t just call it quits and go home. There were CONDITIONS placed on the cease-fire. There was NEVER a peace declaration nor was there a formal cessation of hostilities. It was ONLY a cease-fire.
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;
* Ah, here is the lie. Hans Blix and his crew must have been manipulated by the governor of Texas who, at that time, had neither been asked to run nor had announced his intent to run for president. All of the UN inspectors must have been in a conspiracy with Bush. Also, every intelligence agency in the world was part of the conspiracy hatched by the governor of Texas.
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;
* I seem to remember this happening. How could this have happened, though if Saddam pledged to verifiably destroy the WMD? After all, wasn’t Hussein the aggrieved party in all of this? Wasn’t he the duly elected president of Iraq?
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);
* This has to be a lie. Iraq was always in compliance according to the anti-war crowd. Hussein secretly destroyed the WMD and notified the governor of Texas, although he failed to notify the sitting US president. Right, D.U.?
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 an 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;
* The programs were there, the capability was there and certain terrorists were there. However, Osama bin Laden wasn’t there, so we can’t consider Hussein to be supporting terrorists if he isn’t having tea and crumpets with bin Laden. Abu Abas, Abu Nidal, funds to Palestinians terrorists… that doesn’t count. Also, the fact that BOTH the Kay report and the Dulfer report clearly stated that Iraq was seeking nuclear warheads and long range missiles should not be counted on when we have sound minds like Michael Moore contradicting them.
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;
* This can’t be true. Hussein is a peace loving philanthropist. Bush is the lying murderer.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
* Still bringing THAT up. Damn. Gas a few thousand Kurds and you’re branded for life!
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;
* That shouldn’t count. After all, Bush was a Republican. Hussein didn’t try to kill Clinton, so his old crimes are ancient news. Iraqi missiles never actually killed any of our pilots, and even if they had, they shouldn’t have been over Iraqi air space, right?
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;
* AHAA!! The big lie. Members of al Qaida were NOT in Iraq. Okay, maybe they were, but bin laden wasn’t, so it doesn’t count. How does this link Iraq to 9/11? Supposedly, that’s what the Michael Moore’s of the world are saying. We were lied to about Iraq being behind the 9/11 attacks.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
* Shouldn’t we be seeing some lies by now? After all, if Bush lied to get us into war and this is Bush’s use of force declaration, shouldn’t some of the lies have shown up at this point?
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;
* Okay… but this doesn’t say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
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;
* This could be misleading. Just because a mass murderer has sworn to kill you in the past, it doesn’t mean he’s not a nice guy in the present.
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;
* This could be considered a lie. Sure, the UN authorized force, but they didn’t really mean it.
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';
* Just because Congress authorizes a military action, it doesn’t mean it isn’t entirely the president’s doing, right?
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';
* We’re running short, here, libs. We need a lie fast!
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;
* Clinton may have made the liberation of Iraq our national policy, but that didn’t mean he meant it!
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';
* By action they though Bush meant stamping his feet and denouncing them in the harshest of terms, not employing the evil military.
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;
*This brings about a question. If we never found the WMD, even if we have footage of them being transported to Syria, did they ever exist? If the WMD never existed, then how could Iraq have ever been a threat? Ignoring the fact that Iraq used WMD and the UN verified the existence of WMD, how do we know there WERE WMD?
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;
* This says INCLUDING nations who aided in the 9/11 attacks, but not limited to such nations. It’s hard to find a lie here.
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
* It’s no fair citing facts and law that gives Bush authority over Congress. This was supposedly a unilateral action but the president alone.
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…
* I’m sorry. This is the Use of Force Resolution. This IS the document of lies that got us into Iraq. Maybe I just overlooked them. Maybe some of you could help point them out to me. I didn’t see any lies. If there are no lies in this document, then the lies are coming from the lips of the democreeps.