Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
As I said before, yllus, "transparently disingenuous".
Did the UN request an invasion of Iraq? No?
Then how were we supporting UN resolutions to do so? That is what the war resolution actually calls for...
When did
UN Resolution 678 expire in its authorizing "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990)"?
Mr. Clinton and his administration seemed to think it was still in effect in 1998. I imagine they agreed with my reading on the
UN Resolution on Iraqi disarmament "stressing that the necessary conditions do not exist for the modification of the measures referred to in section F of resolution 687 (1991)".
Your remarks wrt Democratic representatives and senators circa 2002 are along the same vein- conveniently forgetting the ongoing fear and disinformation campaign about terror and the Iraqis coming from the admin, and the undercurrents of that election, not to mention that there's a big difference between saber-rattling brinkmanship and going off half-cocked.
That's making excuses for politicians not carrying out their responsibilities. Those who said 'aye' voted for use of lethal force - this wasn't a pork-barrel bill to routinely look the other way on and vote upon without looking at the full text. When are one's leaders obligated to speak their concience if at a time like that?
As I've quoted above the words weren't coming just out of the mouths of White House staff. Daschle himself helped draft the measure advocating war. Pretending otherwise also fits well into the category of disingenuity.
As I've pointed out previously, several times, and as you've chosen to pointedly ignore, the Iraqis apparently had no wmd's, and were in compliance with the inspection requirements a few weeks prior to the invasion, per Blix's March 7 2003 report to the UN... Threats were working, but enforcement of the UN resolutions wasn't exactly what the Bushistas had in mind, anyway...
This was your first post in this thread, so I don't know where I've been ignoring your statements on this supposed compliance. Dr. Blix and a number of UNSCOM inspectors sure seemed to
have thought otherwise prior to the war, but speaking engagements seem to be more important than factual consistency to many these days.
Blix's report to the UN...stated that Iraq was in compliance? Please do feel free to enlighten us by
perusing the text of that speech and pointing out where that conclusion was voiced.
I suppose you'll blame Clinton for the "flowers in the streets" miscalculation, too, along with the wretched and shameful way that the so-called reconstruction has proceeded, along with abu ghraib, indefinite detention w/o charge, and all the rest of it... Don't blame GWB, don't blame yourself for being duped into re-electing the guy, either- blame anybody else, preferably "Liberals", right?
I liked Mr. Clinton immensely. And I'm merely for the factual representation of data in this forum area. You folks who boil everything down to "neocon" or "liberal" can have your fun, but I don't take this place seriously enough for that.