UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Calling the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein "a grave and gathering danger," President Bush on Thursday called on Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions or face possible military action to remove him.

"The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met. Or action will be unavoidable," Bush said. "And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."

Bush said to assume the Iraqi government's good faith would be "to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble."

He said that since the end of the Gulf War, Iraq had repeatedly violated U.N. resolutions calling for it to disarm its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. (U.N. resolutions on Iraq)

The president accused Saddam's regime of continuing to pursue weapons of mass destruction, calling the period since U.N. inspectors left in 1998 "four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and to build and to test behind the cloak of secrecy."

Bush did not did not lay down any deadlines for returning the inspectors to Iraq. But he called the situation a "difficult and defining moment" for the United Nations.

"We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of oil for food and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts," Bush said.

Bush also accused Iraq of sheltering and supporting terrorist organizations and said members of al Qaeda had found refuge there. He said Iraq's government "openly praised" the September 11 terrorist attacks.

"By his deceptions and his cruelties, Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself," Bush said.

The president also announced the United States would rejoin the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) "as a symbol of our commitment to human dignity." The United States quit UNESCO in 1984.

Annan warns Iraq and U.S.
Before the president's speech, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan delivered a two-pronged message to the Assembly. He cautioned Iraq it must comply with U.N. resolutions, while warning the United States that no U.N. member nation "large or small" should act alone on major global issues as "a simple matter of political convenience." (Full story)

Reaction from other world leaders was mixed, with Spain expressing support for the U.S. position but other countries reacting more cautiously. (Full story)

The White House produced a report in advance of the president's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, documenting repeated violations by Iraq of the commitments it made at the end of the Persian Gulf War to eliminate its chemical, nuclear and biological weapons programs. (Full story)

Iraq's foreign minister, who will address the General Assembly on Friday, said Iraqis don't want war but "will fight to defend their own country, their own freedom against those barbaric invaders." (Full story)

The administration is coordinating its strategy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and U.S. officials said London will take the lead in pressing the United Nations to demand a return of inspectors within weeks.

For weeks, the Bush administration has been reviewing the British equivalent of a "white paper" on Iraq, which U.S. officials said Blair is also expected to release to the public in coming days.

To that end, officials said, U.S. strategy following the Bush speech is three-pronged:


A team of the president's principal advisers will be dispatched to Capitol Hill.


A team of deputies will be dispatched overseas.


John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, will continue to press the case at the United Nations.

And Washington will send a clear signal to Iraq by sending troops to the Middle East to test the idea of moving the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command to the Gulf nation of Qatar. Central Command is now based in Tampa, Florida. (Full story)

Bush has been widely criticized in world capitals for what some, even traditionally supportive, U.S. allies consider a unilateral push for military confrontation with Iraq.

But White House officials reject much of the criticism, saying Bush all along has maintained the use of force as a last option.

And these administration officials say the White House has achieved its first goal when it comes to Iraq: putting the issue at center stage in the international debate after what the White House considers years of inattention to Iraq's defiance of its commitments.

Bush will try in several meetings this week -- while he attends the U.N. General Assembly -- to build support for ousting Saddam.

The president met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Thursday morning, and will meet with the leaders of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Africa, Rwanda and the Congo.

Bush will then hold talks Saturday at the presidential retreat at Camp David with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.
www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A classified briefing unveiled more intelligence information for lawmakers that justifies giving the president approval to attack Iraq, said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, but some colleagues continued to expressed skepticism about sanctioning any such move.

"I don't want us to be in a position weeks or months from now saying, 'How come you didn't connect the dots? What did you know and when did you know it?' We know plenty right now," Lott, R-Mississippi, said, following a Tuesday briefing with .

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA officials.

Talking to reporters Tuesday, Lott said he wants the White House to send Congress language on an Iraq resolution by the week of September 23 so lawmakers can work out the wording and have ample time for debate on the Senate floor before the pre-election recesses.

But some leading Democratic senators expressed skepticism about how new the information from the briefing is, and whether the resolution will or should happen before the election.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, D-Delaware, said he heard no new information at Tuesday morning's intelligence briefing on the threat Iraq poses.

When asked if he thinks the administration is justified in ratcheting up the pressure and rhetoric against Iraq at this point, he smiled and said, "I'm going to lunch." Asked if that was a "no," he gave another smile and repeated, "I'm going to lunch."

Biden said that despite all the talk of Congress passing a resolution authorizing Bush to use force, he does not believe it will happen because he predicted that Bush will likely move forward diplomatically with the United Nations rather than seek immediate military action.

"There is no certainty about a resolution," Biden said.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, said believes Iraq is a real threat, but added that the White House has more convincing to do on Capitol Hill and to the American people before asking Congress to approve a use-of-force resolution against Iraq.

"If the president wants to have a vote before the election, he needs to give the military threat, or he risks looking political. With that timing, he will run the risk of looking brazenly political," Bayh.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Connecticut, a potential 2004 presidential candidate, said it may be best to delay a vote until after the election because Iraq should be a non-partisan issue.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who also has his eye on the White House, agrees the case has not yet been made for Congress to give Bush approval for military action.

"I don't think we're at that point yet," Kerry said, adding that although there was an "increased compilation" of information, there was a "sameness" in much of what he heard Tuesday.

Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said it is impossible for lawmakers and other government officials to adequately answer the questions about Iraq because the Bush administration has not yet produced a comprehensive threat assessment and may be "missing key intelligence information."

Durbin wrote CIA Director George Tenet Tuesday, as well as Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham, D-Florida, and ranking Republican Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, asking that a the CIA put together a so-called "National Intelligence Estimate," an authoritative written judgment on national security regarding Iraq.

But some senators said they are becoming more convinced as they get new information about Iraq's threat.

Senate Minority Whip Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma., said he was skeptical last week of U.S. action against Iraq because he was not convinced there was an immediate threat.

But he said the briefing has "further convinced me that Saddam Hussein has a lot of weapons and is a serious threat to the U.S. and the world community, certainly his neighbors."

Lott said Hussein may have been able to reverse some of the disarmament that weapons inspectors were able to achieve in Iraq.

"He's gone back and put (up) some of the plants that were destroyed or jammed up one way or another by inspectors," Lott said. "Well, I've got to be careful what I say, how much I say here. But we have reason to believe he has gone back and reactivated them. Some of them he could still argue they have dual use. But the fact of the matter is they can be used for very dangerous purposes."

Biden, along with Republican Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, wrote President Bush Tuesday suggesting that he seek a diplomatic route at the United Nations when he speaks there Thursday.

The two senators asked the president to call on the Security Council to "mandate requiring Iraq to accept an unconditional weapons inspections regime that gives inspectors the power to (go) anywhere, anytime" and setting a deadline for Iraq to comply.

"Although we recognize that it will require difficult diplomacy, we believe your administration can succeed in gaining support for a mandate -- much as President George H.W. Bush did before the Gulf War. Such a resolution would have the merit of putting the focus where it belongs: on Iraq's dangerous and illegal weapons programs," wrote Biden and Lugar.

Biden and Lugar expressed concern that while they agree Saddam poses a significant threat, there is still no consensus on answers to critical questions such as: What is the likelihood he will use weapons of mass destruction; would attacking Iraq precipitate its use of those weapons, and will an attack on Iraq threaten the U.S. war on terrorism?

On the House side, one leading Republican continued to express his doubts about the merits of a strike against Iraq.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said Tuesday he wants to see a "plan" for military action before he would commit to supporting the use of force against Iraq.

"This is a big deal," Armey said. "My wife and I sat in our home and we watched those young men get slaughtered on the streets of Mogadishu in the absence of a plan. It broke our heart."
www.cnn.com

Well... he made a better argument this time; he didn't link "Sodom" Hussein with the war on terror- which was good.

I buy this argument a hell of a lot more than I buy the "Axis of Evil" argument.

"The Security Council resolutions will be enforced. The just demands of peace and security will be met. Or action will be unavoidable," Bush said. "And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."
That I think should (and apparently now is) the KEY to his proposal. I think if he outlines this carefully and documented, he can get many more people behind him.

But, it needs to be presented to Sadam, in clear/b&w. You let us inspect, where we want, when we want, per the UN agreement, or we will forcefully verify this.

Again, I think that makes sense.

The problem I am currently having. By not linking this to the war on terror, is he saying Sadam is a bigger threat than the terror threats?

I heard some of the speech and just read a transcript. He has fairly clearly presented to the UN their failure to enforce the resolutions THEY voted on 10 years ago.

He didn't need to come out and repeatedly declare Saddam a terrorist - he's clarified his position on that for weeks now.

This is a "glove" presented to the UN to stand up and if nothing else face the fact that they are a failure.

They'll all be pissed at us tomorrow. How will they stop him now?

Once again, we are still awaiting the proof.

Originally posted by 86Dude
Once again, we are still awaiting the proof.

Proof that Saddam has shoved his middle finger at the world or proof that he wants to see you dead?

Text of Bush Speech to U.N.


The Associated Press
Thursday, September 12, 2002; 11:14 AM

A text of President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Thursday, as released by the White House:

Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and to the citizens of many countries. Yesterday, we remembered the innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without fear.

We have accomplished much in the last year – in Afghanistan and beyond. We have much yet to do – in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations represent here have joined in the fight against global terror – and the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war – the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any man. We created a United Nations Security Council, so that – unlike the League of Nations – our deliberations would be more than talk, and our resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful dictators, broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicate ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged.

Our commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where it reaches people and lift up lives ... to extend trade and the prosperity it brings ... and to bring medical care where it is desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United State will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts – ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living beside Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps, terrorists are plotting further destruction and building new bases for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place – in one regime – we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms ... exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped – by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge – be his deceptions, and by his cruelties – Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities – which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents – all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for – more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995 – after four years of deception – Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program – weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq – four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others – again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues – as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis – a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced – the just demands of peace and security will be met – or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.

Thank you.

French President Jacques Chirac, in an interview with The New York Times on Monday, suggested a U.N. Security Council resolution should give Baghdad a three-week deadline for letting weapons inspectors into Iraq, before a second vote on the use of military force.
One of the smartest things from a frenchman's mouth. Honestly though. This is what should be done. And from there, we need to then decide what our military objective would be. And once that objective is achieved how we would maintain that objective. THEN Bush would have a fairly 'easy' time getting most of us behind him.

http://www.cr101.com/video/jokes/Terrorist_Hunting_Permit.jpg

Originally posted by Manu

One of the smartest things from a frenchman's mouth. Honestly though. This is what should be done. And from there, we need to then decide what our military objective would be. And once that objective is achieved how we would maintain that objective. THEN Bush would have a fairly 'easy' time getting most of us behind him.


agreed... this needs to have approval, if not support, from the other nations.. not just us. Not that I wouldn't love to see us go in and "blow them the hell up" but I think it would cause too many problems :|

Originally posted by RedLine99


Proof that Saddam has shoved his middle finger at the world or proof that he wants to see you dead?



How about proof he wants me dead?

Originally posted by Manu

One of the smartest things from a frenchman's mouth. Honestly though. This is what should be done. And from there, we need to then decide what our military objective would be. And once that objective is achieved how we would maintain that objective. THEN Bush would have a fairly 'easy' time getting most of us behind him.

All valid points however I dont think we are dealing with amateurs here.
This is probably the most qualified group of people assembled in DC in a long time. Rumsfeld earns high marks IMO.



How about proof he wants me dead?

He has gassed his own people you know.
What makes you think you are not a target?
I have heard reports of him giving Al Queada funding, although that was only "hearing" so I cannot document it.
He did attempt to assasinate the elder Bush several years ago.
I dont think its a secret he doesnt like us and we do know he does use NBC weapons in an offensive mode.

We do also know he has violated all the UN mandates and the agreements he made in the cease fire from the first Gulf war.

We do also know he has violated all the UN mandates and the agreements he made in the cease fire from the first Gulf war.
That needs to be the pinnacle of GWBs argument, and he made it well.

The next discussion needs to be on WHY is Iraq next on the US 'terror' list. Are they the next most significant threat to us while Bin Laden, his son are on the loose, and 2000ish Al queada operatives are in the US?

This is so ****ing hilarious and absurd I cannot help but laugh. No wonder America is never taken seriously. ROFL Saddam Hussein - world conquerer/grave danger. Joseph Goebbels himself would be in awe of this one.

>>>>If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others – again as required by Security Council resolutions.<<<<

ROFL! Who the hell are the Palestinians again?

>>>>We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime.<<<<

ROFL! Of course when Israel unilateraly ignores DOZENS of UN Security Resolutions, BY FAR more than Iraq is defying, its - OK! Neverthless, we must bomb Iraq because "UN Security Council Resolutions" must be enforced.

The ART of HYPOCRISY!