Roger Clements is to stand trial in Federal Court for lying about his use of steroids during his very successful baseball career, but George Bush will never have to answer a single question about leading the United States into war through the use of spurious evidence of weapons of mass destruction. In the U.S., it seems, the honor of baseball is more important than the honor of the office.
V: Your liberal bias and perhaps conspiratorial side is showing. In the U.S. lying is excused if one is a liberal and only worthy of condemnation if you are a Conservative... Prior to 2002, the United Nations Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq involving the Iran–Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq disarmament crisis leading up to and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 (From Wikipedia) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). (From Wikipedia) Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations." - In light of the United Nations Security Council that passed 16 resolutions on Iraq: Please provide evidence of your claim in which George Bush led the United States into war through the use of spurious evidence of weapons of mass destruction. - The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held to a different standard than President Bill Clinton who signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The Iraq War Resolution voted and passed by the US Congress (including 82 votes in favor by Democrats) authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Please provide evidence why President George Bush must be held accountable for the authorization in which the US Congress (includes 82 votes by Democrats in favor) gave him the power use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" ? BTW – It is shameful that in last night's Obama Iraq speech he refused to thank & give President George Bush credit for the Iraq Surge and success in the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq. Also note Obama's dishonesty and convenient flip-flop on his earlier statements against the Iraq Surge! [ame="&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Fox's Carlson Catches Gibbs In A Naked Lie--Asks 6 Times If Obama Will Credit Bush
Zack, those resolutions the President sought certainly do provide a type of legal/political cover for the acts, but I'm more concerned about the reality than the appearance of things: what happened was perhaps the greatest error of judgment in U.S. history, yet no one has been held accountable for it, so far as I know. As for the evidence being spurious, no one disputes that, not even the President. Our investigation on the territory of Iraq, following the invasion, proved conclusively that it was.
Over here, we're having a long and drawn out inquiry (the chilcott inquiry) in to the iraq invasion; where the key players including Tony Blair have been questioned; although it only an inquiry and holds no legal baring - lots of questions over the legitimacy of the war have been raised, it has even come to light that Lord Goldsmith (the attourney general at the time) had doubts that millitary action against SH was legal ... but convieniently changed his mind at the last minute... Is (or has) anything similar happening in the US?
rdubnpk I wrote of this earlier that there was a moment in history immediately following 911 (which unfortunately is my birthday) where most of the world was just as horrified as we were and the outpouring of support for the US was nearly universal. If our leader, at that moment, had chosen the correct course, most of the world and its leaders, I believe, would have united to fight terrorism and those responsible. Instead, George Bush rushed us into attacking Iraq who had absolutely nothing to do with 911 and forfeited all credibility, essentially turning those against us who might have helped. Iraq was in no way associated with Al-queda (sp) or the acts carried out on 911, yet here we were wasting billions of dollars and, more importantly, thousands of young lives in pursuit of Bush's folly. This will forever be his legacy and the reason he will be considered a gigantic faux pas in American history.
and the same will be said for his poodle, Tony Blair; that war was always about "finishing the job", they just needed a good excuse.
rdubnpk Although I didn't support the war in Iraq, I along with all America, genuinely appreciate the Brits standing with us. It is just unfortunate that all the young men and women from both countries had to sacrifice life and limb in such an unnecessary venture.
V: I"ll say this; I do enjoy reading your posts of vivid imagination, pseudo logic, and day-dreams. First of all: I believe we can agree hind-sight is 20/20 and that if one (even a committed liberal) had perfect knowledge at the time – a different decision may be made now knowing Saddam had no WMDs. However, being that we are all but mere humans, we do not have the benefit of 20/20 hind-sight. Speaking of reality, it is a fact that in addition to the U.S. Intelligence Agencies there were many other respected and credible intelligence sources such as; Israel, Spain, Germany, and Britain (a key U.N. Security Council member) that agreed of the existence of Iraq's WMDs. Saddam even tried to exterminate his own people the Kurds, with chemical agents. Furthermore U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei provided periodic updates to the U.N. Security Council concerning the extent of Iraqi cooperation, what they had or had not discovered, and what they believed remained to be done. During that period the Bush administration, as well as the Tony Blair administration in the United Kingdom, charged that Iraq was not living up to the requirement that it fully disclose its WMD activities And let's not forget hawkish quotes from Democrats on Iraq's WMDs: “My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.” -John Edwards, Democratic Senator of North Carolina, 2002 In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. -Hilary Clinton, Democratic Senator of New York, 2002 “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons” -Bill Clinton, Former Democratic President, 2003 "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." -Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Congressman of California, 2002 “We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict” -Harry Reid, Democratic Senator of Nevada, 2002 So V, my questions for you are exactly: #1) Who should be held accountable and why? - The U.N., The UNMOVIC & IAEA Chief Inspectors, Britain, Spain, President Clinton, President Bush, Tony Blair, or perhaps Nancy Pelosi? #2) Without the miraculous powers of 20/20 hind sight, where is your proof of the evidence being spurious?
Please read my response to Mr. V. With the overwhelming evidence that Saddam indeed HAD WMDs, and the mass murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, wouldn't it be blatantly irresponsible for ANY President to ignore serious threats abroad?! Furthermore, I challenge you to find a direct quote from anyone in the Bush Administration that openly links & accuses Iraq for the attacks of 9/11. That false premise was concocted by the left to attack and discredited President Bush.
rdubnpk Paragraph one proves, without a doubt, you have swallowed an entire load of crap and paragraph two just reinforces the fact we should never have been in Iraq in the first place.
