While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] ”

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared 122mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision.

As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed.

At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".

Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.

LEGAL?????

There was no automaticity. And, favored by Syria? Are you kidding me? Oh Syria, that grand democracy not linked to political assassinations in its neighbor country, link to terrorism, and support of Hezbollah and Hamas. hahaha come on.

The UN Resolutions were broken over a DECADE, revised and changed time and time again, and prior to the Iraq War we went to the UN to tell them to truly impose the Resolutions on Iraq. They didn't, Iraq did fulfill the requirements, but did try to turn the coming war away by suddenly leading UN Inspectors to a cache of missiles that reached farther than were allowed and were of types that the UN had no idea that Iraq even had those.

Then we know Oil For Food, France and Russia and other countries taking money under the table while selling illegal goods to Iraq. How can you go back to the UN when there are members there pocketting cash from the country in question?

EVERYONE thought that they were hiding WMD, the UN Inspectors said that they were detoured all the time, not shown everything even after Iraq was told, hey, let us everywhere or else. Still they diverted Inspectors who even said they saw people going out the back after waiting hours, before they were allowed in.

So, we went to the UN, argued the point with all the intelligence from multiple services, formed a coalition, gave a final warning, telling Saddam to stop this by standing down and turning himself in, he didn't, so we went.

We gave them plenty of time. Took the proper course.

And, I'm done, this will go no further.

There was no authorization to go to war.
Even our own congress was lied to about his reasons.
He lied to the world, but worse he lied to US!!


I cant say it enough!!!


I find it insulting that this coward (Bush), who used his daddies power and influence to avoid what he sends these boys to do, should be allowed to speak over the fallen of our brave men and women

we have become no better than the tyranical british oppressors of the 18th century. except now we can do it on a much larger scale. just as I stated before. we are no better than the christians who burned hundreds of innocents for suspicions of witchcraft!

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/iraq-blue-e-110702-1198.pdf

Read it, the UN resolution that the Neo-cons say gave them permission to invade Iraq!
There is nothing in there authorizing the US to invade!
Nothing!!!!

Fanta,

And they kicked out the UN weapons inspectors before they had completed their work.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml

Hans Blix was right.

Here's what Ron Barton, another Iraq weapons inspector, wrote:

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2405.cfm

Yeah, I know it's long, but its totally relevant and worth the time to read.
-------------------------------------------------

Study documents nearly 1,000 lies from Iraq war propaganda campaign

Alex Lantier
Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The systematic propaganda campaign waged by the Bush administration with the full collaboration of the mass media to drag the American people into a war of aggression has been newly documented by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI). The Washington-based, non-profit public policy journalism organization this week released a large database of the lies top government officials used to terrorize the US public into accepting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

By the CPI�s count, the 380,000-word searchable database (available to the public at http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/) contains at least 935 demonstrably false statements made on 532 separate occasions by the following officials: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

On these 935 separate occasions, the database�s authors write in their introduction, officials �stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration�s case for war.�

These claims of Iraqi WMDs and links to Al Qaeda were all completely false, as US officials have acknowledged. Perhaps the most famous admission came on January 26, 2004, when, in Senate testimony, former US weapons inspections leader David Kay conceded that �we were all wrong��a conclusion that followed from the October 2003 Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report, which Kay explained by telling Congress that, after months of searching US-occupied Iraq, �We have not found at this point actual weapons.�

The database provides crucial historical evidence that the American people were led into a disastrous and criminal war based on a concerted campaign of falsehoods by all the top officials of the Bush administration. As the report notes, �The cumulative effect of these false statements amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war.�

Thus on July 30, 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer to reporters asking whether Iraq had relations with Al Qaeda: �Sure.� He then went on to say, �Well, are they [Al Qaeda] in Iran now? Yes. Are they in Iraq now? Yes.� The very next day, Rumsfeld�s own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would reach the conclusion that �compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established.� The DIA had previously stated that �the nature of the regime�s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.�

On August 26, 2002, Cheney told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars: �Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.�

In a September 2002 national radio address, Bush said, �The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.�

In January 2003, Wolfowitz described Iraqi weapons programs as �just a series of evil weapons unaccounted for, huge quantities of anthrax that can kill millions of people, huge quantities of botulinum toxin that can kill millions of people, ricin that can kill millions of people.�

In his infamous February 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council, Powell called his allegations of Iraqi weapons programs�including �biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails,� an �extensive clandestine network� to supply �its deadly biological and chemical weapons programs,� and the obtaining of �sufficient fissile material to produce a nuclear explosion���facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.�

The information in the database refutes Bush administration claims, after the US occupation forces failed to find WMD and Al Qaeda activities in Iraq, that it was somehow misled by false information provided by the intelligence services.

The database includes press articles, interviews and government documents detailing how claims such as Powell�s were in fact based on fraudulent intelligence and the deliberate manipulation by top officials of the US intelligence establishment. As the database�s introduction somewhat cautiously notes, this �calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.� In fact, the database paints the picture of an administration so desperate to start a war that it would do almost anything to force intelligence services to provide a casus belli.

For instance, it describes the �human sources� on which Powell based his UN speech. One was an Iraqi defector codenamed Curveball, an engineer who claimed to have seen mobile weapons labs in Iraq. A 2006 Senate report in the database quotes the CIA�s analysis of Curveball: �[A foreign intelligence service] has discussed Curveball with US, but no one has been able to verify this information.... The source is problematical.� The CIA�s head of covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who opposed the inclusion of Curveball�s material in the UN speech, later remarked that �the policy was shaping the intelligence and not the other way around.�

The other source was an alleged Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who claimed the Iraqi government had helped train Al Qaeda operatives in biological and chemical warfare. The database quotes CIA analyst Paul Pillar, who described al-Libi�s interrogation transcripts as �sketchy and ambiguous, almost James Joycean.� These transcripts were provided to the CIA by Egyptian intelligence, which had tortured al-Libi.

Al-Libi apparently continued to provide such information to US intelligence after being transferred to the US. According to a 2004 US Senate investigation, al-Libi told the CIA he �decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].�

Another example was the continuous pressure exerted by Cheney and his aides on the CIA to fabricate incriminating evidence linking the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. After interviews with former CIA Directorate of Intelligence chief Jami Miscik, journalist Ron Suskind described these interviews between Cheney�s and Rumsfeld�s staffs and Miscik thus:

�Cheney�s office claimed to have sources. And Rumsfeld�s, too. They kept throwing them at Miscik and CIA. The same information, five different ways. They�d omit that a key piece had been discounted, that the source had recanted. Sorry, our mistake. Then it would reappear, again, in a memo the next week. The CIA held firm: the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent didn�t occur.�

Miscik told Suskind she reached that conclusion that �It wasn�t about what was true, or verifiable. It was about a defensible position, or at least one that would hold up until the troops were marching through Baghdad.�

The basic dishonesty of these proceedings is further underlined by the fact that, before the war, top US officials publicly implied that whether or not they could prove their allegations against Iraq was essentially irrelevant, as the potential of an Iraqi threat called for a US invasion anyway. Perhaps the most famous example was Condoleezza Rice�s September 8, 2002 statement to CNN�s Wolf Blitzer: �There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don�t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.�

While no doubt useful in its compilation of evidence of such a massive campaign aimed at deceiving the American people, the CPI study falls far short of a political explanation of how this reactionary effort was able to succeed.

What it fails to examine is the way in which the Democratic Party fell into political lockstep with the administration in the months leading up to the war in Iraq. Omitted from the database are the lies told by the likes of the current Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, who delivered a bellicose speech from the floor of the US Senate in October 2002, before joining the overwhelming majority of her colleagues in voting to authorize the Bush administration�s launching of a war against Iraq. Indeed, Clinton proudly noted that her husband�s administration had employed the same lies about Iraqi WMD as the pretext for launching cruise missile attacks on the country in the 1990s.

The Senate was then�as now�under the leadership of the Democratic Party. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle declared at the time that America had to speak �with one voice� in threatening war against Iraq. Then senator and presidential candidate John Edwards wrote in a Washington Post opinion column just weeks before voting for war: �America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction.�

The Democrats at the time had the leadership of the Senate intelligence, armed services and foreign affairs committees, yet none of them pressed for investigations into the blatant lies being used by the administration to prepare for war.

The reality is that both parties were quite conscious of both the phony character of the administration�s propaganda campaign and of the administration�s determination to manufacture a pretext for war no matter how contrived. They backed this campaign because the representatives of big business in both parties agreed on a strategy of invading and occupying Iraq with the aim of seizing control of the country�s vast oil reserves and establishing US hegemony in a vitally strategic region.

Using US military power as a means of asserting American capitalism�s dominance and thereby offsetting its relative decline on the world market was a consensus policy within the ruling elite. Among masses of working people, however, there existed intense opposition to war. The barrage of lies and propaganda about an imminent threat from nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was unleashed in order to terrorize the American people into accepting a war.

The Democratic congressional leadership was not a victim of this lie campaign, but rather served as a willing accomplice.

Also missing from the picture provided by the Center for Public Integrity is the criminal role played by the mass media during the run-up to the Iraq war. The television networks and major newspapers acted collectively as a kind of privatized propaganda ministry for the Bush administration�s war drive, amplifying and, in some cases, embellishing upon all of the lies catalogued in the CPI study. Meanwhile, all those who challenged the fraudulent official story promoted by the administration and the Democrats�not least among them the millions who took to the streets to oppose war�were systematically silenced and censored from the news.

There is no doubt that the 935 lies assembled in this study constitute a vital piece of evidence that would amply justify the impeachment and prosecution for war crimes of Bush, Cheney, Rice and others in the administration. The fact that there is no move to indict these officials for their crimes, however, only points to the continued complicity of the Democrats, the media and the predominant layers of the ruling political establishment in continuing a war of aggression that has claimed the lives of over 1 million Iraqis as well as nearly 4,000 American troops.

You guys do realize that as soon as we post the truth the sheeple, whats left of them (all 28%), instantly close their eyes, start singing la, la, la with their fingers in their ears, and walk away refusing to talk about it any longer!


I cant say it enough!!!


I find it insulting that this coward (Bush), who used his daddies power and influence to avoid what he sends these boys to do, should be allowed to speak over the fallen of our brave men and women

Yeah Fanta, but maybe one day some of them will pull their heads out of their asses and realize who they've been supporting.

A lot of them have, but I dont know about this remaining 28%.
They seem unable to face the facts.





Damn Sheeple

To have to belittle and be as condescending as you possibly can speaks volumes. Funny how this seems to only be the tactic of Madisonman, Dragoness, Mnhiker, and now yourself. It really says something that I have no resorted to such blatant insults of someone's core character unless critiquing their insults directed towards others or their argument processes as I did in another thread as Dragoness said something, took it back as I called her on it, to only say the same exact thing a moment later.

To refer to me as a sheep, which you did, along with other insults, is foolish and unwarranted. Shows a lack of real character and a belief that you are better in great authority and smarter, the rest of us just stupid idiots that don't think for ourselves.

To call yourself the victor cause I went to bed, cause it was 12AM is as well childish, especially since it went along with your insults.

Simple fact is, the UN Resolutions are what saved Saddam his country after the Gulf War, he did not meet them many times over for a decade, we went to the UN and sought something to actually be done, which was impossible because so many were having money put into their pockets from this man. We argued, showed our points based on intelligence (that would later prove to be some truly crappy intelligence work from many sources over) said, we said Saddam here are your options, turn yourself in to the international community or we are coming in. He did not, UN Inspectors were quickly shown to a stockpile of missiles that no one knew Saddam had nor had the capability to have, but then they got a run around further, they got pulled out, and we went in with the coalition.

There was NO automaticity as you are seemingly claiming there was. NO triggers. It was based on numerous things and there was a prcoess to get to war, which shows that there was indeed no automaticity or triggers. If you consider a decade of UN Resolutions broken a 'trigger' you are really stretching.

We went based on a breaking of the UN Resolution and thoughts of WMD. We did not just pack planes and charge on it, there was a quite long process of talk among leaders, the UN, and with Saddam before it actually happened. It wasn't an immediate thing, we went through a process to get there.

That's how it went, and I pretty much said it three times over now in a short span, and that's how I'll end it. If you want to reply and do a victory dance, a "Mission Accomplished" dance, for the second time, as you already did one, by all means go for it.

It is true that Saddam Hussein broke UN Resolutions and no longer respected the no-fly zones.

But he was, essentially, contained. He didn't have any ties to Al Quaida, even though the Vice President lied more than once on national TV and said that he did.

And he wasn't threatening to invade other countries like he did Kuwait.

The war was started, as you noted, on 'truly crappy intelligence'.

This 'truly crappy intelligence' got us into a war that could have been prevented, with over 4,000 of our soldiers dead and counting, as well as billions of dollars thrown away.

The Bush Jr. neocons, like Donald Rumsfeld, were just itching to get a reason to invade Iraq. They hated the fact that Bush Jr.'s dad hadn't finished the job.

And so, in a tremendous display of absolute hubris, recklessness and stupidity, war was declared.

Fox News brought in former generals who used pointers on floor maps to gave us the play-by-play of the attack.

Just like football.

The neocons, in their deluded state, thought our soldiers would be hailed as liberators and that the war would be short.

They didn't factor in an insurgency.

All this while Bush Jr. gave tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.

None of these rich people's kids ever had to serve a day in Iraq.

And D i c k Cheney's former company, Halliburton, of which he still owns a lot of stock, made billions in Iraq.

So the media outlets like Fox News kept spinning lies, changing the reasons we went to war, censoring any bad news, and many of the brainwashed sheeple bought it.

This mission isn't accomplished and there seems to be no end in sight.

Let's not forget those former Generals were getting their talking points directly from the Pentagon, helping spread the layers of propaganda.

your kidding right star

Must be Democrats!