http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html


October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq


Number 1.:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;


AND, of course, Mr. Murtha, they were in violation of the CEASEFIRE.


Number 2.:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

AND, Mr. Kerry, they so frequently stymied the efforts of the weapons inspectors that ex-president Bill Clinton lobbed bombs at them on a regular basis.

Number 3.:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

AND, Mrs. Pelosi, the Iraqi consistently fired upon US and British forces enforcing the no fly zone.

Number 4.:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;


Number 5.:


Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Number 6.:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Number 7.:


Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Number 8.:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;


Number 9.:

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Number 10.:

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;


Hey I thought the liberals are saying that they didn't have AlQaeda in Iraq?


Number 11.:


Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Like the fact that they gave $25,000 to the families of murdering coward homocide bombers.


Number 12.:

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Number 13.:

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;


Number 14.:

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Oh yeah, the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany, Britain all agreed that Iraq had WMD.

They are all liars too.


Number 15.:

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Maybe we need a new socialist government program that ensures that liberals read things before they sign off on them?

Maybe it could be set up right after the government program to stop hurricane graft is created


Number 16.:



Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Number 17.:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

What? Regime change was in there too?

Number 18.:



Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Number 19.:


Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

I think the democrats, led by Murtha aren't so determined now.

Number 20.:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

More explicit approval for Bush to pursue actions he thinks are best.

Number 21.:

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Well, now one would have to question how many of the democrats still have this kind of mettle.

Number 22.:


Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Number 23.:

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;


So. Even though WMD are, necessarily, a serious concern prior to the war.

Let it be known that oil wasn't mentioned once, but there are numerous cases where the letter "o", "i", and "l" do appear in this verbiage.

Maybe you need a special liberal decoder ring?

Wow-in addition they might have even included oil,we have a legitimate interest to protect that...

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Bush was prez in 1990. He already had oil and oil also comes from the middle east. Why would the US suddenly decide to defend this no where country?

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Sounds like an excuse to stay over there longer. Why did we want to liberate Kuwait to start with? What difference does it make to the US if Kuwait has problems? I don't see the US trying to free Tibet. :hmm:

With our nosing around over there causes national hostility towards us, aggrivating the situation. Then eventually attacks. Iraq MAY have WMD, but several other countries we know for a fact have WMD. Why does the US have to keep an eye on countries in the middle east... who just happen to have oil?

This seems like it all could've been avoided if we hadn't been in something we had nothing to do with in the first place...

Kuwait paid us to intervene.

I look at the world like a giant chess set

Kuwait paid us to intervene.

So it all does come down to greed. :|

Sadaam was no pussy cat-why couldnt it be greed and responsibility?

I guess it could be both, but I think the US should be sitting on it's own nest before pecking the others.

I guess it could be both, but I think the US should be sitting on it's own nest before pecking the others.

but it's no longer that kind of game.It's a global economy.(there is a little sarcasm here)

...combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire...

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24-Feb-2001

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." - Condoleeza Rice, 29-Jul-2001

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

The administration knew there were no WMD there but continued to use it to scare the American populace into thinking Iraq was some sort of imminent threat. Indeed, despite Powell & Rice both stating the truth, Rumsfeld went on the record telling the world he knew where these phantom weapons were and then, when they predictably didn't turn up, suddenly they were spirited off to Syria by the Russians.

What a sad and embarassing time for America.

There is something inherently absurd about post hoc justifications, which is why they are also called "rationalizations." The absurdity stems from the fact that if an action is clearly justified -- and starting a war is necessarily illegitimate if it isn't clearly justified -- from the outset, there is no need for the post hoc justification. Therefore, the post hoc rationalization is always too little too late, and achieves the opposite of its intended result.

Of course, the small and dwindling ranks of Bush apologists are too dim-witted to comprehend this bit of common sense.

There is something inherently absurd about post hoc justifications, which is why they are also called "rationalizations." The absurdity stems from the fact that if an action is clearly justified -- and starting a war is necessarily illegitimate if it isn't clearly justified -- from the outset, there is no need for the post hoc justification. Therefore, the post hoc rationalization is always too little too late, and achieves the opposite of its intended result.

Of course, the small and dwindling ranks of Bush apologists are too dim-witted to comprehend this bit of common sense.

That's why I don't bother to get into this terribly often, because the rationales given before the war still stand as legitimate. There were many reasons given for the invasion, and it's a fever dream that new ones are being offered now. Note that the thread starter merely referenced the resolution that was authored in 2002, not anything since then.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
AND, of course, Mr. Murtha, they were in violation of the CEASEFIRE.



The cease fire was between the UN and Iraq. The UN didn't give approval to attack the Iraqis. Don't try to blame George Bush's actions on them.


AND, Mr. Kerry, they so frequently stymied the efforts of the weapons inspectors that ex-president Bill Clinton lobbed bombs at them on a regular basis.



That was years ago. Hussein obviously had gotten rid of the weapons since then. That Iraq had WMDs in 1997 isn't a rationalization for attacking Iraq in 2003, no matter how badly you want to believe it is.


AND, Mrs. Pelosi, the Iraqi consistently fired upon US and British forces enforcing the no fly zone.


For violating their air space. If the Mexican army sometimes "accidentally" slipped into Tejas, would you not expect us to fire on them?


Hey I thought the liberals are saying that they didn't have AlQaeda in Iraq?



Al Qaida wasn't operating in Iraq before we attacked the Iraqis.


Like the fact that they gave $25,000 to the families of murdering coward homocide bombers.


Because Israel was bulldozing their houses. A war crime.

Has nothing to do with us, either way.


Oh yeah, the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany, Britain all agreed that Iraq had WMD.

They are all liars too.


Don't try to shift blame. the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany didn't invade Iraq. the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany didn't say they knew for a fact and had bulletproof evidence that Iraq was a clear and present danger, and had to be invaded. the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany wanted to let the inspectors continue working to see if the threat was real. So don't try to blame the United Nations, Russia, China, France, Germany for George Bush attacking the IRaqis.


So. Even though WMD are, necessarily, a serious concern prior to the war.


Obviously not.


Let it be known that oil wasn't mentioned once, but there are numerous cases where the letter "o", "i", and "l" do appear in this verbiage.

Maybe you need a special liberal decoder ring?

Jefferson never said "I need bribe money", so it's obviously a rightwinger fantasy. Maybe you need a dittohead decoder ring. Kennedy never said "I got drunk and drove my car off a bridge and killed a girl" so it's obviously a fascist fantasy. Maybe you need a goose stepper decoder ring. :rolleyes:


You poor people are so sad. You'll spend the rest of your lives trying to justify your hysterical reaction to Republican propaganda and trying to rationalize the thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent, all to "defend America" from a bunch of lies.

You poor people are so sad. You'll spend the rest of your lives trying to justify your hysterical reaction to Republican propaganda and trying to rationalize the thousands of American lives lost, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars spent, all to "defend America" from a bunch of lies.

You guys need to get your stories straight. Here you're saying tens of thousands while others of your persuasion claim hundreds of thousands. Which is it, or does the number flucuate according to desired purpose? BTW, I thought large numbers of democrats authorized the war, before they tried to run from their votes. Guess it wasn't Republican after all.

BTW, I thought large numbers of democrats authorized the war, before they tried to run from their votes. Guess it wasn't Republican after all.

Now you're going to try to blame this on Democrats?

Now you're going to try to blame this on Democrats?

Nope, I'm saying it shouldn't be a partisan issue, since majorities of both parties signed on. They're paid to look at the evidence and make good decisions. They had access to stuff we will never see, and many of them had access long before Bush ever showed up. The democrats tried to make it a partisan issue by runnning away from their votes in the last election cycle, but it didn't work. You want to "blame" it on anyone, "blame" the entire US government, from intel services to Congress and on down the line.

Nope, I'm saying it shouldn't be a partisan issue, since majorities of both parties signed on. They're paid to look at the evidence and make good decisions. They had access to stuff we will never see, and many of them had access long before Bush ever showed up. The democrats tried to make it a partisan issue by runnning away from their votes in the last election cycle, but it didn't work. You want to "blame" it on anyone, "blame" the entire US government, from intel services to Congress and on down the line.

When you folks thought it was going to be a "short war" and a success, you were trying to give all the "credit" to the Republicans, claiming Democrats were inhibiting the drive to war. Now that it's a disaster, you want to share the "blame" for it.

Typical.

Nope, I'm saying it shouldn't be a partisan issue, since majorities of both parties signed on. They're paid to look at the evidence and make good decisions. They had access to stuff we will never see, and many of them had access long before Bush ever showed up. The democrats tried to make it a partisan issue by runnning away from their votes in the last election cycle, but it didn't work. You want to "blame" it on anyone, "blame" the entire US government, from intel services to Congress and on down the line.

I blame the American people for allowing their completely worthless and treacherous "representatives" to get away with lying to them, scaring them, manipulating them, exploiting them and generally using public office for private gain, of which the unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq is a prominent example.

Who ****ing cares? We're there now. This is the reality. Let's end this shit on a high note and move forward.

The cease fire was between the UN and Iraq. The UN didn't give approval to attack the Iraqis. Don't try to blame George Bush's actions on them.

No it wasn't, because the UN was never at war with Iraq. The Ceasefire was between Iraq and the coalition forces. The UN merely granted permission for the Coalition to declare war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait. The Ceasefire was then Between the sides involved in the conflict.

Hugs

lilnymph

No it wasn't, because the UN was never at war with Iraq. The Ceasefire was between Iraq and the coalition forces. The UN merely granted permission for the Coalition to declare war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait. The Ceasefire was then Between the sides involved in the conflict.

Hugs

lilnymph

http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

It was the UN's cease fire arrangement.

Who ****ing cares? We're there now. This is the reality. Let's end this shit on a high note and move forward.

Some people really fell for it three years ago, and believed every single thing the government said. They still believe it, or refuse to acknowledge that it ever happened in the first place. In other words, they haven't learnt anything from it, and don't seem to want to.

That means that this year, and again in two more years, they're going to make the same mistakes, elect the same con artists, and drop more debt on the rest of us to pay off in taxes.

That's why it matters.

drop more debt on the rest of us to pay off in taxes.


..as if the Dems wouldn't do the same exact thing. :rolleyes:

..as if the Dems wouldn't do the same exact thing. :rolleyes:

http://www.snowman-jim.org/politics/federal-debt-GDP-large.gif

Some people really fell for it three years ago, and believed every single thing the government said. They still believe it, or refuse to acknowledge that it ever happened in the first place. In other words, they haven't learnt anything from it, and don't seem to want to.

That means that this year, and again in two more years, they're going to make the same mistakes, elect the same con artists, and drop more debt on the rest of us to pay off in taxes.

That's why it matters.

So we should just say **** it then?

So we should just say **** it then?

There should be concern that it could happen again.

Of course the current cluster**** cannot simply be wished away but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't analyse and remember how this happened so it won't be so easy to fool the masses again.

So we should just say **** it then?

Third parties or switch the power-party every election cycle. I haven't voted for an incumbent in a decade, and I've very rarely voted for people from either name brand party.

The only people who can punish the Republican party for what it's done to us in Iraq are Republicans. The Democrats weren't going to vote for an R anyway. But if the Republicans just ignore the problem and lie to themselves about what's happened, then the GOP knows it can do whatever the hell it wants, make up pathetically weak lies, and get reelected.

I'd be willing to bet that most people have never read this.

Just like those that are so adamant about evolution have NEVER read the Origin of the Species.

Nah, it's not about the oil.

We are interested in the Middle East to spread democracy, like how democracy spread in vital ME allies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait!

ME dates are a vital trade resource and America will do anything to prevent tyrants like Saddam destabilising the date market.

We just want to help those Muslim Arabs be free from tyranny; because Americans, especially Republicans, care so deeply about the welfare of Muslim Arabs.

LOL

Really... come on...

Nope, if oil was the issue the president could have clearly used the 9/11 attacks to push forth with a policy of energy self sufficiency.

That would have pissed the liberals off though because then they wouldn't be able to fly around in their private jets and be driven in their limos.

Nope, if oil was the issue the president could have clearly used the 9/11 attacks to push forth with a policy of energy self sufficiency.

"Oil" isn't that simple. For example Iraq has vast reserves, that are relatively untapped. It would be a very strategic country to control in a world of declining oil reserves...

Also, "We are under attack by terrorists! Let's reduce our oil usage to stop provoking and supporting these terrorists." ...

"Oil" isn't that simple. For example Iraq has vast reserves, that are relatively untapped. It would be a very strategic country to control in a world of declining oil reserves...

Also, "We are under attack by terrorists! Let's reduce our oil usage to stop provoking and supporting these terrorists." ...

This idea about oil....it really isn't thought out by the lefties.

If the president's goal was to exapnd the executive, and take away rights and all the things that he is being accused of were true he could have used the attacks on 9/11 to do all of that without having to invade anyone.

Oil is that simple. Instead of focusing on international Islamic mutants he could have demanded and got price controls, drilling off shore, relaxing environmental laws (some would say he did that anyways).

There just is no reason to invade for oil.

All that had to be done was to get rid of the sanctions, open a dialogue, and start cultivating Iraq as an ally against the Iranians.

Also, "We are under attack by terrorists! Let's reduce our oil usage to stop provoking and supporting these terrorists." ...

It is no less foolish to say "we are under attack by terrorists so lets go to the middle east and steal Muslim natural resources".:not:

You are missing the big picture. Oil is power. It isn't just about having oil so all the American yuppies can drive around without spending all their income on one tank of petrol or to simply make a profit from selling stolen oil...

It is no less foolish to say "we are under attack by terrorists so lets go to the middle east and steal Muslim natural resources".

Err.. you obviously didn't get what I meant...

I think that your picture is blurry.