About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

On Iraq war fifth anniversary, NBC and ABC failed to point out that administration's original justifications for war have been debunked

March 21, 2008 7:07 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: In their coverage of the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, Nightly News and World News did not mention once that the Bush administration's original justifications for going to war -- including its assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had operational links to Al Qaeda -- have been repeatedly debunked or discredited.

112 Comments

The March 19 broadcasts of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams and ABC's World News with Charles Gibson reported on the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war without mentioning once that the Bush administration's original justifications for going to war -- including its assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that Iraq had operational links to Al Qaeda -- have been repeatedly debunked or discredited.

Nightly News aired four separate reports about the war, but at no point did anchor Brian Williams or any NBC contributor note that numerous pre-war claims by the administration have been debunked. Further, Nightly News did not report that a recently released Pentagon-sanctioned study of over 600,000 Iraqi government documents seized since the war began "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam [Hussein]'s Iraq and al Qaeda." The report, titled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi documents," was released March 12. Not only did Nightly News not report on the Pentagon-sponsored study in its fifth-anniversary coverage, a review* of the Lexis-Nexis database shows that NBC News does not appear to have mentioned the report at all on Nightly News or any of its other news programs.

Similarly, during the March 19 broadcast of World News, anchor Charles Gibson also aired no reports on the Iraq war anniversary noting that numerous claims the administration made in its case for war have been discredited, although ABC News did previously report on the Pentagon study. For instance, on the March 11 broadcast of World News guest anchor Elizabeth Vargas reported: "ABC News has learned that for the first time, the U.S. military will acknowledge there is no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. The comprehensive Pentagon study obtained by ABC News is being released tomorrow. It concludes Saddam used terrorism routinely as a tool of state power, targeting mainly Iraqi citizens, but had no direct connection to Al Qaeda." But in World News' reporting on the five-year anniversary, Gibson did not mention the Pentagon report. Rather, he said: "In five years, we have seen horror in a prison; a landmark election; the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein; and the so-called surge of forces to improve security."

By contrast, during the same night's broadcast of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric noted: "As for a link between Iraq and 9-11, a just-completed study of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi documents captured after the U.S. invasion found no evidence of any operational ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda." Couric also reported that "a National Intelligence Estimate in 2006 said the Iraq war had actually led to more terrorism."

As Media Matters for America has noted, the administration's claims about the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda have been repeatedly discredited. Most recently, the U.S. Joint Forces Command released the results of the Pentagon-sanctioned study, which "screened more than 600,000 original captured documents and several thousand hours of audio and video footage archived in a US Department of Defense (DOD) database called Harmony." Of the Iraqi government's ties to Al Qaeda, the report's Executive Summary states: "This study found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda." It added: "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside Iraq."

Neither Nightly News nor World News mentioned the administration's debunked pre-war WMD claims. As Media Matters has noted, not all of the available intelligence supported the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's purported WMD. For example, both President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell claimed that Iraq had attempted to purchase aluminum tubes that, as Bush put it in an October 7, 2002, speech, are "needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The government's "foremost nuclear experts," however, "seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons." The Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research found that the tubes were ill-suited for uranium enrichment, and their findings were included in the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress in October 2002 and, reportedly, in a one-page summary of the NIE that was presented to Bush.

Similarly, Bush claimed during his October 5, 2002, radio address that "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons," even though the available intelligence did not justify such an unequivocal statement. A September 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report found "no reliable information" to substantiate the claim that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. Moreover, while the intelligence community believed Iraq possessed biological agents that could be quickly produced and weaponized, the October 2002 NIE made clear that the agencies lacked hard evidence to back up this assumption: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."

From the March 19 edition of CBS' Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: In five years of war, nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women have been killed, more than 29,000 wounded. Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated to be 85,000. As for the financial cost, the price tag for American taxpayers has gone from an early estimate of 50 to 60 billion dollars, to an actual 600 billion and counting.

With that, our poll tonight found more than half of Americans believe going to war in Iraq was a bad idea.

The president said today the war has opened the door to what he called a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror. But a National Intelligence Estimate in 2006 said the Iraq war had actually led to more terrorism.

As for a link between Iraq and 9-11, a just-completed study of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi documents captured after the U.S. invasion found no evidence of any operational ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

There are 155,000 troops in Iraq right now, and today, protesters in Washington and other U.S. cities reflected our poll. Nearly half the respondents said most U.S. troops should be pulled out within a year.

From the March 11 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:

VARGAS: ABC News has learned that for the first time, the U.S. military will acknowledge there is no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda. The comprehensive Pentagon study obtained by ABC News is being released tomorrow. It concludes Saddam used terrorism routinely as a tool of state power, targeting mainly Iraqi citizens, but had no direct connection to Al Qaeda.

Today, President Bush stated that the decision to remove Saddam was and always will be the right one.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 21, 2008 7:22 pm ET)
         
      If allowed, an actual debate on the desicion to remove Saddam would also show its lack of connection to reality. Oil first,second,and especialy forever.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (March 22, 2008 7:33 am ET)
           
        You can't fault the oil corporations for wanting to control more territory. That's not the American way .

        As my band The Telepaths wrote in our song 'Crude War'

        It's a Crude War

        For crude slick

        And crude gold

        For crude pr*cks
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rumplestilskin396408 (March 23, 2008 1:08 am ET)
             

          if memory serves no u.s. oil companies were granted any concessions in Iraq, so that didn't pan out.  But we have to get the oil from somewhere.

          Robert Kennedy, Jr. had an interesting editorial in the wall street journal about the oil companies today.  I don't think I can do it justice, so I just recommend reading it.  The thrust of it is that the companies don't do anything to get their added largese, it's just world prices giving them a great boon.  As a result, he argues, because they have a product we can't do without, they should cough up some, especially to those who can't afford the cost of energy.

          I haven't thought very hard about it, but you might apply the same argument to other industries.  The corporate farmers growing wheat are making a killing, while the cost of a bagel has gone from eighty cents to a dollar fifty. 

          But I think it is more complicated because what would be the consequences if we just pick on u.s. companies.  What will that do to their ability to compete with foreign companies.

           above my pay grade.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (March 21, 2008 8:39 pm ET)
         
      the whole iraq issue is like the tax issue.  things are going bad, we can't withdraw in defeat.  things are going "good", we can't withdraw and give up our successes.  the economy is good, cut taxes.  the economy is bad, cut taxes.  the fact is that we are not anywhere near the stated goal of this fiasco, which was to create a stable democracy.  and where were the guys like mccain when the government of iraq recently invited iran's ahmadinijad  and he stood there and said the people of iraq hate america. 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steve k (March 21, 2008 10:43 pm ET)
         
      When Cheney was asked what he thought of the fact that two-thirds of Americans think the war in Iraq wasn't worth fighting, he responded with this eloquent and scintillating argument:

      "So?"

      That's right. After the deaths of three thousand American troops and a million Iraqis, and a cost of over a trillion dollars, Dick Cheney responds with "So?"

      He should just have flipped his middle finger. That would have been more honest.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by gator80 (March 22, 2008 12:15 am ET)
         

      You may want to read the whole document before concluding that Saddam had no "operational links to Al Qaeda."

      http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redaction%20EXSUM%20Extract.pdf

      Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (March 22, 2008 8:22 am ET)
         

      President Bush said the war was necessary and 30% of americans believe it!!!!!!??????

      Until 90 % believe this war is a farce, there is little hope for this country. Thanks MSM. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 9:03 am ET)
         

        You mean that all those democrats lied to us when they made claim after claim of the danger of Saddam Hussein?!? Maybe your selective memory can't recall that from 1998 till 2002 key democrats like Clinton (both), Kennedy, Kerry, the guy from Michigan, Pelosi and others ALL lied to the American people when they made claim after claim of Saddam's dangers to his people/country and the world by his potential use of WMD's and his terrorist training camps???

         I think it's good that liberals now quote and support Imadinnerjacket. Will you use his quotes to authorize an invasion when a democrat wins...like both promise to do. Oh! You people ignore those speeches don't you? Obama threatens to bomb the bejesus out of Pakistan and you love him. Bush removes a brutal dictator (with UN approval and assistance) and you hate him. Hypocrits!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (March 22, 2008 9:28 am ET)
           

        PHILIB,

        In part, you said "Maybe your selective memory can't recall that from 1998 till 2002 key democrats like Clinton (both), Kennedy, Kerry, the guy from Michigan, Pelosi and others ALL lied to the American people"

        I don't dispute this claim...... but you do remember when Bush came into power that he claimed he was going to bring back integrity back to the WH..... which I could easily interpret as:

        He was going to come clean on everything that Clinton got wrong or was wrong about.....

        One would think that something as potentially volatile as Iraq possibly having WMD's he would have wanted the truth out there and come out looking like a great guy.....

        No... instead he used all that and did what the Dems wouldn't do..... he used it as an excuse to create a disaster for all..... based on lies!

        Cheney was in the Reagan and Bush I administration's and knew that the WMD's, whatever was left was supplied by us in Saddams war against Iran.... that we helped make sure started and kept going as long as possible.....

        He (Cheney) would also have also known the age and/or expiration date of any WMD not used yet that was supplied by us!

        Since 1991 Iraq had way to many sanctions against it for it to have aquired new WMD's that could have been anything close to resembling an immediate danger to us! Let alone nuclear grade weapons!

        So say what you will about the Dems...... but they didn't start an illegal war against Iraq based on lies nor did they use 9/11 as an added excuse to do so.... this band of Republicans did!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 10:13 am ET)
             

          "No... instead he used all that and did what the Dems wouldn't do..... he used it as an excuse to create a disaster for all..... based on lies! "

             So, Bush tried to relieve the Iraqi people from it's murderous dictator (with UN approval and assistance) based on democratic lies and the failure of a peaceful resolution becomes Bush's fault?

           What excuse did Clinton use when he created a disaster in Bosnia? No US troop deaths, but thousands of innocent women and children murdered by American bombs that Clinton supplied.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by captfoster2 (March 22, 2008 10:32 am ET)
               

            PHILIB,

            First of all I didn't make the claim that Clinton was innocent of any wrong doing.... history will treat Clinton in the light he will deserve when all is said.... but this isn't about Clinton so stop changing the damn subject and focus on what I'm saying!

            My claim was that Bush said that Iraq had WMD's but left out the important facts that the WMD's in question had long since been destroyed, sold, or went bad from expiration all verified by the UN and Hans Blix. 

            Cheney and gang also kicked out the UN weapons inspectors.... not Iraq as they try and claim, so that they can begin bombing Iraq and begin an illegal invasion that they didn't have UN backing to do nor did they have the proper approval from Congress to so this......

            Congress said they can go and attack anyone and anything they had to to get even with the 9/11 attackers and backers.... since 9/11 and Iraq had ZERO connection.... this occupation is illegal and a war crime because it was based on the lie that Iraq was part and parcel to the 9/11 attacks!

            They also left out the fact that those WMD's that they claimed were a danger to us were supplied by us back in the 80's..... remember that pesky photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam that keeps creeping up!!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 10:51 am ET)
                 

              "Cheney and gang also kicked out the UN weapons inspectors.... not Iraq as they try and claim, so that they can begin bombing Iraq and begin an illegal invasion that they didn't have UN backing to do nor did they have the proper approval from Congress to so this...... "

                 Ok, I see where you're coming from. You're not interested in discussing facts, you just want to get your opinion in here as if it we fact. No need to go any further till you agree to stick to FACTUAL discussion.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by captfoster2 (March 22, 2008 11:27 am ET)
                   

                OK PHILIB.....

                I have it with you and your closed mind!

                You asked on another thread for facts to back up my words or to debunk others..... fine..... here, here, here, here, or here is a video montage

                Whether this convinces you or not, I'm not completely sure that I care..... but don't even for one second claim that I'm the only one that needs to be factual!

                I'm still awaiting you to come up with facts of your own to back your claims that I'm wrong?

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 6:20 pm ET)
                     

                  http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

                    Would the UN resolution deciding that 'serious consequenses' could occur if Saddam does not comply work ok for you?  Umm, did Saddam comply?

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (March 22, 2008 6:54 pm ET)
                       
                    the inspectors were in iraq and finding nothing.  bush has lied about the fact that they were there and he had them kicked out.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mefirst (March 22, 2008 6:58 pm ET)
                         
                      and if you are going to go by the un resolution, you would have to agree that they would have decided the consequences.  can't have it both ways. 
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 7:05 pm ET)
                         
                        So, providing the UN resolution that authorized action isn't good enough? I guess you got me on this one, then. BTW, how many countries are members of the UN? How many did NOT sign that resolution? How many countries felt the resolution was indeed sufficient to allow them to use their troops along side of ours?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (March 22, 2008 7:33 pm ET)
                           

                        it did not "authorize action".  try again.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 7:39 pm ET)
                             
                             Word games. "Serious Consequenses" means what in your world? Going without PS2 for a week?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 8:04 pm ET)
                               
                            The "serious consequences" were to be decided with a second vote at the UN.  The Bush administration didn't go back because no one in their right mind would have voted for the Bush administration's version of "serious consequences" when the inspectors were on ground proving Bush a liar.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 11:49 am ET)
                                 

                              "The "serious consequences" were to be decided with a second vote at the UN.  The Bush administration didn't go back because no one in their right mind would have voted for the Bush administration's version... "

                                 Mefirst provides a good link that describes the 'second vote' situation. So, you are believing a lie when you parrot that Bush did not go back for that vote! And, a majority of UN nations may have fit within your "no one in their right mind" classification. Don't let your freinds know you just debunked another liberal claim of a lie. Just in case, here's the link:

                              http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0317usbritspain.htm

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:16 pm ET)
                                   
                                and the headline in that link is "u.s. britain and spain abandon resolution". 
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 12:24 pm ET)
                                     
                                     Is that where you stopped reading the article?
                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:41 pm ET)
                                       
                                    obviouly not.  but the point is that the u s withdrew the resolution, one which bush had previously he was going to get before taking any action.
                                    Report Abuse
                          • Author by mefirst (March 22, 2008 8:06 pm ET)
                               
                            says the game player.  you said it authorized action.  it did not.  you refer to the un resolution, and so therefore you are accepting them as the controlling authority, but they did not authorize an invasion.  bush said he would seek that authority, but did not bother when it became clear that he would not get it.  the inspectors were there, bush had them pulled out so he could invade, and he continues to lie about it.  any words not clear enough for you?
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by philib (March 22, 2008 8:30 pm ET)
                                 

                              "bush said he would seek that authority, but did not bother when it became clear that he would not get it.  the inspectors were there, bush had them pulled out so he could invade, and he continues to lie about it."

                                 Bolded words are opinion. You're not Bush, are you? I didn't realize you were a mind-reader too. Provide proof of your contensions (sp?).

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 8:41 pm ET)
                                   
                                Bush is simple-minded; it's pretty easy to read him.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 8:33 am ET)
                                     
                                     Apparantly, not as simple minded as democrats who (if bush lied 900 whatever times) fell for every one of bush's lies. Who's dumber? The one being accused of lieing or the ones who can't figure out he's lieing?
                                  Report Abuse
                              • Author by mefirst (March 22, 2008 8:47 pm ET)
                                   
                                there is no mind reading involved.  fact:  the inspectors were there.  fact:  the un withdrew them because bush said we were going to invade.  fact:  bush has said that we had to invade because saddam did not let the inspectors in. 
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 8:56 pm ET)
                                     

                                  One slight modification:

                                  fact:  the inspectors were there [with unfettered access].

                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 9:33 am ET)
                                     

                                  "fact:....  fact:.... fact: "

                                    Yeah? Where's proof:...  proof:... proof: ?

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 9:55 am ET)
                                       
                                    so you are saying that the three facts i stated are  not correct?  if i provide the links proving them, are you going to admit you were wrong? 
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 10:24 am ET)
                                         
                                         I'll read any (maybe not every;) proof you bring. I'll make my decision after I read them, however I doubt there'll be time to post an answer. If we ever get to this discussion topic again, perhaps you can reference this thread and re-ask your question. Ok?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 10:33 am ET)
                                           

                                        you have plenty of time to read and respond.  here is the link that proves that the u n withdrew the inspectors because of bush's ultimatum.  that covers the first two of my facts.

                                        http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/armtwist/2003/0317usbritspain.htm

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 10:39 am ET)
                                             

                                          and fact three.  bush:  "we gave him a chance to let the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."    hope you're not going to "cut and run" on us. 

                                          http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 11:38 am ET)
                                               
                                               I'm sorry, you need a better link of proof for #3 than an opinion piece written with an obvious anti-war/bush angle. There is no actual proof of your claim, in that article, simply various opinions.
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:00 pm ET)
                                                 
                                              if you think bush's actual words are "opinion", you are incapable of a conversation in the english language. 
                                              Report Abuse
                                        • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 11:22 am ET)
                                             

                                          fact:  the inspectors were there.  fact:  the un withdrew them because bush said we were going to invade. 

                                             Am I to believe this article as fact? Let's go on that basis: 

                                            " The resolution would have authorized war anytime after today unless Iraq proved before then that it had disarmed. Still, Negroponte said he thought the vote "would have been close." "We regret that in the face of an explicit threat to veto, the vote-counting became a secondary consideration," Negroponte said.

                                          Moments later, French ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said that in one-on-one consultations in the past hours "the majority of the council confirmed they do not want a use of force." Shortly after the ambassadors spoke, the White House announced that Bush would address the nation tonight. "He will say that to avoid military conflict Saddam Hussein must leave the country,"

                                              Bush announces an ultimatum that states possible military action IF Saddam doesn't comply while still holding out hope that Saddam will comply. Annan did NOT order the removal of inspectors because war was absolute, he ordered it because a vote was happening that day to approve military action, but under threat of veto by france the resolution never saw a vote. With the threat of veto probably being used because the vote would be so close. Annan already knew that military action was iminant if Saddam didn't comply and the approving vote would have been very close so removal of inspectors was probably SOP.

                                           The only fact you prove, here, is that inspectors were in Iraq at one point. That was a tough point to prove, wasn't it?

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 11:58 am ET)
                                               
                                            i notice that you didn't include the fact that bush said we had to invade because saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in.  miss that one somehow?  that's another fact i proved that you questioned.  and again, you are trying to have it both ways.  you have made reference time and again to the u n resolutions as justification for the invasion.  but there was not going to be such a resolution for an invasion.  even without the french veto, there did not seem to be a majority.  if you want to buy negroponte's bush spin, feel free.  if they thought they could have gotten a majority to approve the invasion, they would have, if only for a symbolic victory.  bush went outside of the united nations because he did not get the result he wanted.  he gave saddam 48 hours to leave iraq or he would invade, a demand he knew saddam would not take.  the u n withdrew the inspectors because bush was going to invade.  that is an established fact. 
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:13 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              in announcing the withdrawal, annan said he had been told by "u.s. authorities" that "it would be prudent not to leave our staff in the region".

                                              http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2003/2003-03-17-03.asp

                                              Report Abuse
                                            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 12:39 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              " but there was not going to be such a resolution for an invasion.  even without the french veto, there did not seem to be a majority.  if you want to buy negroponte's bush spin, feel free."

                                                  The link YOU provide does in fact say a vote was about to happen and that some UN countries would support that resolution. Admittadly, maybe not a majority, but FACT is some would have...enough for debate on support of military action to continue to this day. Another fact is that IF the vote had happened and a majority declared then France would have veto'd the result. Are you denying that France made that threat? Why would a veto threat be needed if no vote was iminant like YOU claim? You contridict yourself during your arguement there was no vote going to happen by agreeing that France's threatened veto wasn't needed since there wasn't a majority of support for a resolution you say wasn't happening. How could there 'not be a majority' if there wasn't even a resolution? Was it you who just said I'm trying to have it both ways? How is claiming "there was not going to be such a resolution for an invasion" using evidence of "no majority" for a resolution that was not going to happen as proof of "not going to be a resolution" not having it both ways? 

                                                 So, my contention is that removal of the inspectors was SOP for the events that Annan knew were possible. Your link supports my contention. And, no invasion was threatened unless compliance did not occur. Of course the invasion was probable at this time, but there was still a slight possibility and an amount of time for Saddam to agree to UN terms and conditions. Which proves your contention that "the un withdrew them because bush said we were going to invade" is false. Bush did not say we would invade. He said invasion would happen IF Saddam did not comply.

                                               

                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:49 pm ET)
                                                   
                                                you still keep trying to have the best of both worlds.  you talk about the u n resolutions when it suits your argument and then ignore them when they don't support you.  even if that resolution had been approved, there would have been time to remove the inspectors.  kofi annan withdrew the inspectors because the u s authorities told him to.  i provided his words.   bush made an ultimatum that had nothing to do with any u n resolution or declaration. 
                                                Report Abuse
                                              • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 5:54 pm ET)
                                                   

                                                The vote was going to be close to a majority MAYBE. NINE  votes not a simple majority would have been required for the UN to authorize force and we were no where NEAR that which is why Bush just abandoned the resolution attempt. IF we could have gotten a supermajority the administration said they were NOT worried about a French Veto

                                                http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E7DD153BF934A35751C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

                                                If American and British diplomats can build support among the 10 nonpermanent members for a resolution to use force, they are relatively sure that France will not use its veto to block the measure.

                                                France seemed to go back and forth on this one but as the vote neared seemed to say they would not veto any such resolution the strongest veto threat actually came from Russia. None of this mattered. Bush wanted a clear majority and then would have ignored such a veto but A) we werent going to get any such clear supermajority and B) NO AUTHORIZATION WAS FORTHCOMING. You claimed we HAD such authorization. THAT is clearly false.

                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 8:53 am ET)
                                                     

                                                     Thank you for helping debunk these wild claims made by mefirst. Where he believes that there was never going to be a vote on authorization to attack. Sometimes liberals can't read and don't understand the facts even when place right in front of them.

                                                  "You claimed we HAD such authorization. THAT is clearly false."

                                                     Did you read the "public law 107-243" link provided later in this thread? Was that passed on Oct 10 2002 by the House and Senate?

                                                  Report Abuse
                                          • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 12:38 pm ET)
                                               

                                            but under threat of veto by france the resolution never saw a vote.

                                            China and Russia also opposed the invasion along with France but they didn't have to do anything because it only takes one country on the permanent council to veto a resolution.

                                            Annan already knew that military action was iminant

                                            Bush already set the stage for the illegal invasion and obliteration of Iraq long before a second vote was to take place and irregardless of what the inspectors had to say.  So yes, Annan did know that an invasion would take place whether it was sanctioned by the UN (legal) or not (illegal).  I wonder if any nation has the balls to charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes for starting a war of aggression against an unarmed nation.

                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 12:46 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              "So yes, Annan did know that an invasion would take place whether it was sanctioned by the UN (legal) or not (illegal)."

                                                 Thank you. If Annan knew a legal invasion would happen would he leave the inspectors in Iraq? I don't think so. If Annan knew an illegal invasion would happen would he leave the inspectors in? Again, I don't think so. So, you prove to me that you believe the inspectors were removed not because of Bush's threat of invasion but because Annan accepted the fact that invasion was likely. He did not "kick them out" because of Bush's was going to invade, he removed them for their safety knowing invasion was a probable event.

                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 12:50 pm ET)
                                                   
                                                he removed them because u s authorities told him it would not be prudent to leave them there.
                                                Report Abuse
                                              • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 1:00 pm ET)
                                                   

                                                Thank you. If Annan knew a legal invasion would happen would he leave the inspectors in Iraq?

                                                A legal invasion was not going to take place during that time frame and most likely never.  It was known that either France, Russia or China would veto the resolution so everyone knew that the the biggest war crime was about to occur since Germany's invasion of Poland.

                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 1:09 pm ET)
                                                     
                                                    There is no differentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal' in this discussion. The contention is whether Annan removed the inspectors because he was told to or because he felt they would be safer in event of a conflict (you even added they may have left because their job was finished). You have not proved your point, but you've done a good job of proving mine.
                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 1:18 pm ET)
                                                       
                                                    he was told to.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 1:31 pm ET)
                                                       

                                                    There is no differentiate between 'legal' and 'illegal' in this discussion.

                                                    legal = sanctioned by the U.N.

                                                    illegal = not sanctioned by the U.N.

                                                    The inspectors were removed because the everyone knew one the biggest war crimes was about occur (the Bush administration didn't have the votes).

                                                    Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 1:38 pm ET)
                                                       
                                                    I found this article with a quick Google search.
                                                    Report Abuse
                                                    • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 2:38 pm ET)
                                                         

                                                        Nice article. It continues to support my stance that the UN removed the inspectors for their safety, not becaue Bush made them leave. Bush "ordered" non-essential personal out of surrounding areas who worked for OUR government, but only "advised" the inspectors to leave. Annan made the final decision.

                                                         And we still have an issue with your stance that the inspectors had finished their job and left voluntarily. How does this article support that theory?

                                                      Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
                                                           
                                                        Your post is ridiculous.  All I can say is that you've been brainwashed.
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                      • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 4:44 pm ET)
                                                           
                                                        who's even arguing the point that the u n removed them for their safety?  that's a non-issue.  the reason is why.  and the answer to that is the bush administration advised them to leave because bush was going to start the war.  you have been offered quotes by various u n officials that it was being done on the advisement of the americans.  the u n was left with no choice. 
                                                        Report Abuse
                                                        • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 4:53 pm ET)
                                                             

                                                          "who's even arguing the point that the u n removed them for their safety?  that's a non-issue.  the reason is why.  and the answer to that is the bush administration advised them to leave because bush was going to start the war."

                                                               You're opinion is not supported by the evidence YOU provided to argue your stance. Saftey is definately a reason. The evidence you provided support that reason. When you find evidence that supports your own opinion please provide it. Otherwise, whining about whose opinion you want to believe is a waste of time. Expecially when you provide evidence that supports the differing opinion from your own.

                                                          Report Abuse
                                                          • Author by mefirst (March 23, 2008 5:08 pm ET)
                                                               
                                                            well actually, you aren't interested in any evidence or in anyone's direct words.  i provided a link that gave bush's exact quote about saddam refusing to let the inspectors in and i even spelled the quote out for you, and you came back and told me the link was "opinion" and not proof of my claim.   so much for your reading ability and your comprehension. 
                                                            Report Abuse
                                                            • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 9:02 am ET)
                                                                 

                                                              "and you came back and told me the link was "opinion" and not proof of my claim.   so much for your reading ability and your comprehension."

                                                                 I read your article, just like I told you I would. I also told you I'd make up my own mind after reading it. My decision was that the author of that article was so prejudiced against Bush and the war effort that I could not accept it as credible evidence. I asked you to provide another. You did, or could, not. If the only evidence you have to support fact #3 is that article then I cannot have an honest discussion with you.

                                                                 However, if you wish to continue losing the arguement on facts #1+2 I'm willing to continue for another 1/2 hour or so.

                                                               

                                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
                                                   
                                                Did you really claim that Annan did NOT remove the inspectors because of Bushs threat to invade but because Bush was likely to invade? What sort of mental gymnastics are necessary for that to make sense?
                                                Report Abuse
                          • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 9:54 pm ET)
                               
                            Since the resolution also said THEY would remain siezed of the issue it was up to the SECURITY COUNSEL to decide what it meant but what it didnt come CLOSE to meaing is an authorization of the US to invade. You keep avoiding the FACT we went back to them to GET authorization and they wouldnt give it to us. So NO it wasnt an authorization for an invasion and no one really thinks it was. Even Richard Perle admitted the Iraqi invasion was illegal. This little hivemind talking point you have been brainwashed into repeating is DUMB and you embarass yourself by carrying hivemind water this way. The proposition we HAD authorization that we TRIED to get and couldnt is just flat stupid.
                            Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 8:08 pm ET)
                           

                        How many countries felt the resolution was indeed sufficient to allow them to use their troops along side of ours?

                        Just Britain.

                        Report Abuse
                            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 9:29 am ET)
                                 

                              "You keep avoiding the FACT we went back to them to GET authorization and they wouldnt give it to us."

                                I provided proof (UN resolution) that the UN declared possible "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't agree. Now, your turn to provide proof of your claim the UN "wouldn't give it to us" concerning the US ability to follow through on the UN resolution.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 11:04 am ET)
                                   
                                If you want to play this stupid little game, show me where in the resolution "serious consequences" is defined as war.  And there was no vote taken at the UN to determine if Saddam was in breach so the "serious consequences" provision doesn't even come into play.
                                Report Abuse
                              • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 4:42 pm ET)
                                   

                                First that doesnt provide any backup for your claim. Serious consequences can mean a myriad of things SHORT of invasion including sanctions or an embargo. The language WASNT what the UN uses for military force. ALL FORCE NECESSARY.  Since the resolution ALSO said the counsel would remain siezed of the issue that would be up to them and cannot POSSIBLY be considered UN AUTHORIZATION FOR INVASION. Do I really need to provide backup the sky is blue? Do you not REMEMBER Bush trying to get authorization from the security counsel? It was a huge story at the time. I guess your repeated trips to Orwells memory hole to discard Bushs LAST rationale for invasion that turned out to be untrue it has rendered you incapable of remembering anything.

                                http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0317-09.htm

                                Losing a vote at the Security Council would have been a blow to U.S. prestige. Instead of running that risk, the Bush administration chose to gamble on a war without the gloss of UN approval.

                                THERE Is also the fact that your resolution said serious consequences IF IRAQ FAILED TO DISARM. They HAD NO WMDS. So how were they in breach of 1441 anyway. Bush SAID he would go back and get authorization until he realized he wasnt going to be able to get it THEN decided he didnt need it.

                                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2856207.stm

                                The United States, Britain and Spain withdrew plans for a new UN Security Council resolution and President Bush gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to go into exile.

                                http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2003/Mar/18/ln/ln11a.html

                                Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader.

                                So NO the UN NEVER authorized our invasion. 1441 gave Bush a questionable rationale and cover but the UN REFUSED to give the authorization you now claim they gave. The claim is ludicrous on the face of it.

                                Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 9:51 pm ET)
                           

                        It did NOT authorize action it said THEY would remain siezed of the issue, that is it would be THEIR decision not ours. The language the UN uses to authorize military force is all necessary force. It is a lie and not a very convincing one that the resolution authorized military force. Kofi Annon called the invasion illegal. I know that is what you have been instructed to believe but its ludicrous.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by rumplestilskin396408 (March 23, 2008 1:07 pm ET)
                           
                        resolution 1441 was a resolution of the security council.  it passed unanimously.  it was never put before the general assembly, so the fact that the other member states did not approve it is irrelevant.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 9:44 pm ET)
                       

                    More hivemind stupidity. This has been debunked long ago. FIRST the language the UN uses when they endorse military action like the first Gulf War is BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Second they ALSO said in that resolution that THEY WOULD REMAIN SIEZED OF THE ISSUE. NOT the US can just unilaterally decide WHAT it means and WHEN to take action so its beyond stupid to claim that resolution AGREED with invading Iraq. We WENT to the Security Counsel to see if we could get them to agree with the Iraq invasion and couldnt even get a simple majority. I know that this is the hivemind talking point and you were INSTRUCTED to believe it but its flat out DUMB. NO the UN did not agree with our invasion. They condemned it. Kofi Annon who was at time the Secretary General called it illegal.

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 9:48 pm ET)
                   
                No he is exactly right and you are WRONG. It is so dumb to claim a resolution that called for serious consequences is a green light for an invasion when it also said the SECURITY COUNSEL would remain siezed of the issue. That means simply, in deferrence to you, that it would remain THEIR decision when and what those serious consequences would be. To leap to the conclusion that it means the UN concurred with our invasion is ludicrous on the face of it. We WENT there to get UN approval and they DENIED it. We couldnt get a simple majority of the Security Counsel to agree with us on the invasion so its only hivemind conditioning that has you claiming something so CLEARLY WRONG.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 10:53 am ET)
               

            So, Bush tried to relieve the Iraqi people from it's murderous dictator (with UN approval and assistance) based on democratic lies and the failure of a peaceful resolution becomes Bush's fault?

            What are you talking about.  The Neocons have been trying to attack Iraq ever since George H. W.Bush refused to go along with their nonsense in 1991.  They found a dunce in George W. Bush and got what their wet dream - a war for oil.  The peaceful resolution part in your post is a joke.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 3:16 pm ET)
               
            Now YOU are lying. The UN NEVER approved our invasion that is a LIE. Broad statements of belief are NOT the specific outright LIES of the Bush administration and PLEASE stop trying to tell me Bush suddenly found compassion for the poor suffering Iraqi people so we had to invade. That is too ridiculous to take seriously. There was no humanitarian justification for the invasion Human Rights groups admitted this. Central Africa was a hundred times worse than what was going on in Iraq at the time. Heck Columbia is worse than what was going on in Iraq at the time and at the time Saddam was committing his WORST attrocities he was our good ally. We sold him MORE precursers for WMD AFTER Halabja. Your rightwing talking points not only cannot stand up to one seconds scrutiny they are actually moronic. IF it was about saving the poor Iraqi people, who I dont remember ASKING us to invade, then why didnt Bush sell us THAT idea instead of the non existant Al Queda collaboration and Non existant WMDS? Only someone comitted to being a brainwashed rightwing psychophant could possibly take those dumb talking points seriously, but let me guess. It sounded good when you heard them on Screechmonkey radio right?
            Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 11:10 am ET)
           

        You mean that all those democrats lied to us when they made claim after claim of the danger of Saddam Hussein?!? Maybe your selective memory can't recall that from 1998 till 2002 key democrats like Clinton (both), Kennedy, Kerry, the guy from Michigan, Pelosi and others ALL lied to the American people when they made claim after claim of Saddam's dangers to his people/country and the world by his potential use of WMD's and his terrorist training camps???

        Democrats and some republicans made broad claims about Iraq based on his past actions and his failure to allow inspectors back into the country to verify whether or not the weapons were still in his hands.  On the other hand, the Bush administration made specific claims about Iraq that turned out to be lies and even when the inspectors were there on the ground contradicting them, they still held onto those lies (they had a sociopathic mentality).  And in the face of opposition from nearly all Democrats and the world, the Bush administration pulled the inspectors and commenced the obliteration of Iraq.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 10:58 am ET)
             

          "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."  --  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

          "On the other hand, ......  they still held onto those lies (they had a sociopathic mentality).  And in the face of opposition from nearly all Democrats and the world, the Bush administration pulled the inspectors and commenced the obliteration of Iraq. "  -- Loonz

             There were approx 60 days between Kerry  'sociopathically'  'nearly'  opposing the removal of Saddam Hussein and the beginning of the invasion.  What NEW intell did we have that suddenly changed his mind about removing Saddam? And, the methods to achieve it that he surely knew about?

             And, this is the sociopath that democrats chose to represent them later that year. Who did not believe we shouldn't have miitarily gone into Iraq. He ran for pres on the basis he would have done the invasion differently.

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 12:11 pm ET)
               

            "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."  --  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

            I don't disagree with anything said here.  The inspectors were not on the ground in Iraq so the question of Saddam possessing WMDs and posing a threat was still up in the air and Kerry like others looked to Saddam's past to form a conclusion albeit the wrong conclusion.  When the inspectors were on the ground verifying that Saddam did not possessed those weapons, most if not all Democrats realized that they were wrong and opposed an invasion.  Bush told them and the world to essentially  go fcuk themselves  and commenced the obliteration of Iraq.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
               

            What NEW intell did we have that suddenly changed his mind about removing Saddam? And, the methods to achieve it that he surely knew about?

            The inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 12:52 pm ET)
                 
                Are you saying that the inspectors had finished their search and announced that NO WMD's were found and were removed from Iraq becaue they had finished? Or, do you mean they were still searching and hadn't made a difinative decision? Are you still trying to have it both ways? 1: claim inspectors were kicked out, 2: claiming the inspectors had finished their job and were no longer needed in Iraq.  Which one are you claiming? They were kicked out or they finished their job and left?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 1:09 pm ET)
                   

                Are you saying that the inspectors had finished their search and announced that NO WMD's were found and were removed from Iraq becaue they had finished?

                No WMDS were found anywhere.  The Bush administration gave them a list of places to investigate and the inspectors investigated and didn't find anything.  This would cause pause to anyone except for those hellbent on war.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 1:12 pm ET)
                     
                    Ok, so we're clear on this subject. You say the inspectors had finished their job and left voluntarily.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 1:32 pm ET)
                       
                    Intrepret it anyway you want to.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
                         
                      Hey, you're the one saying Bush lied and had the inspectors kicked out of Iraq. Now, you're saying they left voluntarily. What other "Bush lies" are you lieing about?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by loonz (March 23, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
                           
                        The Bush administration has really done a number of you.  In the face of all the evidence that contradicts you, you're still defending that war criminal.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
                             
                             Is that how you want to end this? By complaining I'm brainwashed when you can't even find (or make) credible arguements to support your opinion? Key word being credible. Heck, you can't even figure out why the inspectors left...first they were kicked out, then they had finished their job and left on their own accord. Now, it sounds like you're back to thinking they were kicked out even though your own sources show otherwise.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
                           
                        Bush absolutly lied. There is no possible rationale denial that he lied. He LIED when he made up the IAEA report that never existed claiming actually the exact OPPOSITE of the IAEA position. He LIED when he continued to claim the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges when our own scientists declared that it was unlikely they would be used that way at ALL much less could ONLY be used that way. Bush is a liar there isnt any question about that. The inspectors WANTED to stay they said they needed only a few more months to finish. Bush said he was going to invade no matter WHAT and so they were pulled out.
                        Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 11:49 am ET)
           

        Bush removes a brutal dictator (with UN approval and assistance) and you hate him. Hypocrite

        What fantasy world are you living in?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (March 22, 2008 3:10 pm ET)
           
        Still flogging this stupid horse even though it isnt breathing and starting to smell funny? This has been debunked dozens of times. First in 98 the inspectors were GONE in 03 they were on the ground bringing in new intelligence going whereever they wanted. Second there is a huge difference between the broad statements of belief like we believe Saddam is doing this and the outright specific LIES told by Bush and there is NO reasonable argument that Bush didnt lie. Bush lied. Bush is a liar. Its what he does. He lies like most people breathe. He LIED about the aluminum tubes he kept telling both the public AND Congress for more than a YEAR after OUR OWN Gas Centrifuge scientists completely refuted that claim. He LIED flat out when he MADE UP an IAEA report he pulled directly out of his ASS. The one the IAEA denied. The one that claimed the POLAR OPPOSITE of the IAEAs actual position? The Democrats were wrong in 98 and deserve some criticism. I  am still mad at them. They A) DIDNT INVADE IRAQ nor advocate such an invasion for the most part and B) Bush lies his butt off. The man is an outright liar and THAT is a FACT.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (March 22, 2008 9:09 am ET)
         

      The original reasons for the Iraq war are being used by me, in part, for my essay report in my US Government class on the need for investigations of Bush and Cheney for their removal from office via impeachment proceeding!

      It makes me angry how many people have become so misinformed about the war....... I go to a liberal arts college right now and there are people that work there that still believed that Iraq was involved with 9/11..... so if the corporate owned media's thoughts were for this to be the case..... it still is working....

      At least I can be happy in the knowledge that I personally opened up two of these peoples eyes with the facts and they are slowly begining to be angered by what they are learning as I have told them to look it up but not where to look it up!

      I love my country but not blindly like a fool!

      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 22, 2008 4:09 pm ET)
         

      Today, President Bush stated that the decision to remove Saddam was and always will be the right one.

      How many more days until this idiotic warmonger is out of office?

      The next time Bush says that history will bear him out as to the Iraq war, I hope he lives to a ripe old age to witness the carnage he has wrought on this country (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (March 22, 2008 9:54 pm ET)
         
      Everyhing we were told by the Bush administration was either a lie of a misstatement. From the WMD'S, the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake uranium from Niger, the mobile biological labs,  the Al Qaeda connection, the meeting between Mohammed Ata and an unamed Iraqi official in August of 2001,hav all been proven to be false. and our leaders knew it . BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFIELD , WOLFOWITZ, FIETH, LIBBY and the other NEOCONS in the administration  should be prosicuted and imprisioned for their lies.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (March 22, 2008 10:07 pm ET)
         
      I'd recommend reading FIASCO by THOMAS E. RICKS and HUBRIS by MICHAEL ISIKOFF and DAVID CORN for excellent  research  and telling the story of the runnup and execution of the IRAQ war.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NL207 (March 22, 2008 10:28 pm ET)
         

      Utter and complete garbage.

      The actual Casus Belli are detailed in the Authorization for Use of Military Force ...    None of these Casus Belli are effectively debunked by any of this verbage on MM.   Most of them are not even specifically mentioned by any of the linked articles.  The Authorization ... itself is not linked or even mentioned by MM in this article.  The entire argument presented here by Media Matters is a strawman completely disconnected from the stated reasons for war and is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.   Were anybody here at all intellectually honest, they would have started their argument with the Authorization ... and point by point attempted to debunk the enumerated Casus Belli in it. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by loonz (March 22, 2008 10:46 pm ET)
           
        The only reason why anyone in Congress voted for that authorization and why so many Americans followed Bush down that dark path was the WMD argument and scare tactics surrounding that argument.  Without WMD, the resolution would have been laughed out of Congress.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (March 23, 2008 4:28 am ET)
           

        While saying "Casus Belli" three times might hypnotize your equally stoopid friends or pets, lnking to the governments rationale for their actions is not really a good argument for rationalizing the government's actions.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 8:28 am ET)
             

          "lnking to the governments rationale for their actions is not really a good argument for rationalizing the government's actions."

             Gosh, that would be like using the policemans rationale for the judge to find you guilty of speeding.  I hope you don't do this for a living, you're certainly not very good at it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (March 24, 2008 8:39 am ET)
               

            There's usually nothing that bears explanation about handing out a speeding ticket.  If the policeman pulled you out of the car and beat you for no apparent reason, then you probably wouldn't accept his explanation as an objective justification.

            The fact that we're talking about an extreme action makes your comparison moronic, which should be obvious to everyone but you. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 9:22 am ET)
                 

              "There's usually nothing that bears explanation about handing out a speeding ticket."

                 Yes, I know that. It could be why I used that analogy to point out the stupidity of chickenman's statement.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (March 24, 2008 9:52 am ET)
                   
                So launching a war doesn't require justification?  I see.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by ben (March 23, 2008 4:29 am ET)
           
        Just so I understand, are you asserting that since the link you gave references the UN resolution of 1990 that it was valid to use that authorization to (re)enter Iraq?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 5:21 am ET)
           
        You are spectacularly wrong. The causus belli for the war was WMDs. The authorization for use of force was a laundry list but do you really think everyone just forgets what the arguments were in the runup to the war? WMDs. The ones that werent there. With a side order of Iraq collaborating with al Queda, that never happened. It is you that is being intellectually dishonest. Without the WMD threat there would have been no war. Anyone paying attention at the time KNOWS this. So you can bluster and bloviate till the cows come home no one in their right minds is taking such nonsense seriously. The reasons given that justified the war have all dissapeared into the fairy dust from whence they came. You can keep trying to convince us the sky is a wonderful shade of purple all day just because it fits your propaganda agenda. We arent the ones that listen into Screechmonkey radio to find out what we believe today and arent that easily fooled. Not having been conditioned to beleive six impossible things before the end of the Rush Limbaugh show.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by brady (March 23, 2008 10:55 am ET)
             
          Well said.  No matter how many times they try, lie + lie + lie + lie will never add up to "true".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 11:35 am ET)
             

          " Without the WMD threat there would have been no war. Anyone paying attention at the time KNOWS this."

             And that 'anyone' would include Annan and a possible majority of the UN who all wanted the inspectors to stay in Iraq. For what reason? Because they ALL thought WMD's may be present. They weren't there to verify Saddam continues not having WMD's. They were still searching for some and had NOT ruled out the possibility they were there. So, which side are you on? Are you with those "paying attention"? Or, do you know something that Annan and the rest did not?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (March 23, 2008 5:03 pm ET)
               
            Did you try to make a point? I didnt see one. So they were looking for WMDS that MIGHT have been there. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that MIGHT have WMDs is good enough to invade a country? Try that completely illogical rationale in court. Yes your honor. I know the guy DIDNT have a gun or threaten me but I thought he MIGHT have had a gun so I had to kill him. That Catholic Priest I killed MIGHT have been a pedophile. MIGHT is a fine reason to have the inspectors LOOKING for WMDs in Iraq and NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO INVADE A COUNTRY. That argument is so weak you should be embarassed. Bush wasnt telling America that Iraq MIGHT have WMDs he was telling us he DID have WMDs despite NOT being able to give the inspectors any actionable intelligence. The inspectors said all the intelligence they got from us was garbage, they checked it all out and NONE of it was worth their time. So instead of begining to wonder IF there were WMDs Bush decided to throw an I-want-my-war fit and invade instead of allowing them to finish their job.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by philib (March 23, 2008 10:38 pm ET)
                 

              "Did you try to make a point? I didnt see one. So they were looking for WMDS that MIGHT have been there. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that MIGHT have WMDs is good enough to invade a country?"

                 I don't expect you to understand a point. Has that happened?  Your statement sounds like you think NO ONE thought Saddam had WMD's. Only a complete moron would think that. The US gave Saddam WMD's only a couple years earlier. For you to claim people could not possibly think WMD's were present in Iraq only proves you have no clue to reality and need to stop drinking the koolaid you people drink that give you these moronic ideas.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (March 23, 2008 11:38 pm ET)
                   

                What is there in that post to suggest that Solon thinks that nobody believed Iraq had WMDs?

                I guess when you don't have a coherent argument, you can always haul out the trusty straw man.  Whatever gets you through the day. 

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 12:53 am ET)
                     

                  "WMDs. The ones that werent there..... Anyone paying attention at the time KNOWS this. So you can bluster and bloviate till the cows come home no one in their right minds is taking such nonsense seriously. The reasons given that justified the war have all dissapeared into the fairy dust from whence they came...... We arent the ones that listen into Screechmonkey radio to find out what we believe today and arent that easily fooled."

                     Are you related to solon? You seem to have the same intellectual capacity.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (March 24, 2008 8:44 am ET)
                       

                    Right, anyone paying attention at the time knows that we didn't find anything. What's controversial about that?  That doesn't mean that some people didn't believe WMDs were there before that point, and some people seemed to believe they had been there even after nothing was found.   There's nothing about what he said that suggests otherwise.

                    Solon is one of the sharpest posters here, so thanks for the compliment.  On the other hand, you seem to need satellite tracking to figure out where your argument is heading.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 9:15 am ET)
                         

                      "On the other hand, you seem to need satellite tracking to figure out where your argument is heading."

                         I guess you're right, there. I like to follow facts while you follow whatever everyone else tells you to. I showed proof to support my claims you provide opinion and expect it to be ackowledged as fact. That's why you need satelite tracking, because you don't know where you are at any given time.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (March 24, 2008 10:01 am ET)
                           
                        Like pointing to a bill passed in our Congress to show how we have U.N. approval for our action?  Are those the kinds of "facts" you're so proud of?  Your point was that we had U.N. approval.  That has been torn up all over the place, regardless of your delusions.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by philib (March 24, 2008 9:31 am ET)
                         

                      "Solon is one of the sharpest posters here, so thanks for the compliment."

                         That explains a lot toward why none of you have been able to put a decent arguement against lowly me. Being the sharpest marble in a bag full of marbles probably isn't the best way to compliment someone. But, liberalism says it's good to give prizes to everyone who participates ... so ... good job!

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (March 24, 2008 9:54 am ET)
                           
                        I've seen at least five or six posts he's made to you refuting your arguments that you have been unable to address.  If you really want to claim he's dull as a marble, then what does that say about you?
                        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 23, 2008 1:04 pm ET)
         

      I'm on the side that didn't produce 935 lies to support an invasion of a counrty whose resources were going to waste,ie not into the pockets of proper people.

      Nice article in todays P.I. about shrubs efforts to strong arm our suppoesd allies with economic threats and general abusive behavior to support our invasion. Had to eat a little crow later when things started to off the rails in Iraq and he needed their support.

      Is there any form of hubris that shrub & Co. haven't demonstrated? 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (March 24, 2008 12:54 pm ET)
         

      Phillib  '' We gave Saddam WMDs a couple of years earlier''. We invaded IRAQ in 2003 so a ''couple of years earlier ''would be 2000-2001?You need to pull rour head out of the sand. the last time we gave Saddam ANYTHIHG was pre 1991.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by donj (March 24, 2008 6:01 pm ET)
         

      From Media Matters headline:  On Iraq war fifth anniversary, NBC and ABC failed to point out that administration's original justifications for war have been debunked.

      What NBC and ABC also failed to debunk is the fact the we're not at WAR.  Iraq war was over when Bush gave them their country back and established a soverign Iraqi nation. 

      Realize our troops are dying and our treasury has been emptied, but we're not at war with any nation, especially Iraq.  Is this a generational thing?  Have boomers and X gen. been bamboozled for so long by Korea police action and Vietnam communist fighting that they no longer remember what a WAR is?

      Is the whole world nuts?  Why do we let this scam artist president continue his commander in chief facade with added powers because we're at war?  Is it merely because it's to the benefit of the media to sell ads and fill air-time with WAR news and specials like "this week at war" etc. and the politicians by giving them something to pontificate over that keeps this fiasco going.

      Besides (as Tonto told the Lone Ranger when surrounded by Indians) what's this we stuff white man?  Iraq is broken and not 'we' but Bush and Cheney broke it.  So how about instead to retirement we send them over there and let them use their vast fortunes and money made off arms and oil deals and at the expense of our dead soldiers to fix the place.  They decided to bomb the place without asking for any opinions so how about they spend another term over there trying to fix what they broke?  Four more years, not as president but at the end of a shovel.

      Anyway our nations not at war.  Don't know what you call it, maybe adoption of a dysfunctional child or using the world's mightiest military to prove yours is as big as your dads and to kill one fat, ugly dictator, but it sure as Hell's not a war.

      DonJ 

       

       

       

       

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.