BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 06:14 PM

durn, Bruce, you present iron-clad logic.......just not to the point. Interesting metaphors do NOT necessarily do what they call in logic "one-to-one mapping"..i.e., show the connection properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:34 PM

So, where are the lies???

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:30 PM

1. I never have been accused of beating my wife. Is this something ( beating your wife) that occupies a lot of YOUR time?

2. I am not married, and HAVE no wife. Do you have an extra one for me to have?

3. I NEVER signed any international agreements that I had been beating any wives I may have had, and that I would provide conclusive evidence that I was no longer beating them, in order to keep you from destroying me.


Now, prove to me that you are capable of reading English text as written by the UN. Just try it- you might actually learn something.


If a criminal has a gun, and is know to have a gun: When the police show up and demand that he throw out the gun I do NOT think they would accept " I never had it, I destroyed it, and I am unarmed" as a good answer. He will probably get shot, for refusing to DEMONSTRATE that he is unarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:20 PM

"Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed."

BB-
Please prove to me that you have stopped beating your wife.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 05:04 PM

"He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

"Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

" Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."


Since the UN report states these as fact ( Saddam gave NO EVIDENCE that he destroyed the items/facilities in question) I fail to see how any thinking person could state that the restatement ( OF THE UN REPORT) was an "incredible pack of lies "

Please tell me where YOU got your information, since the reports the UN gave out do not agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:59 PM

"Since we already knew about it and allowed Saddam to keep it without any accusation of his violating 687 (including Bush himself), your point is rather blunted."

1. The fact tah we knew about it was not the same as allowing his posession: The UN was derilict in failing to insist on the destruction of prohibited material.




"When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003:"

Pray tell me what of the list you gave have ever been proven to be wrong? IN ALL CASES Saddam failed to show credible evidence that the prohibited items had been destroyed.



"You know if they'd found any type of missile cache ready to go, Bush would have been vindicated. "

Fine. I will acknowledge that YOU have declared Bush to be vindicated by the discovery of those prohibited missiles and weapons systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:53 PM

>>Then you must concede that Saddam DID NOT comply with the terms, as I had posted information previously about the * UN * finding missiles with a greater range, as well as shells for chemical weapons AFTER the invasion.<<

You know if they'd found any type of missile cache ready to go, Bush would have been vindicated. That fact that he has not been vindicated and never talks about WMD being his reason for invading anymore proves you to be full of shit. You're trying to pull a Rick Santorum on us when he tried to use this same info to "prove" Bush was right and the State Dept shot him down saying the govt already knew about that stuff and that was not what they were looking for.

Since we already knew about it and allowed Saddam to keep it without any accusation of his violating 687 (including Bush himself), your point is rather blunted.

When Bush tried to say Saddam violated 687, he was referring to the incredible pack of lies in his SOTU address in 2003:

"Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

"U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:51 PM

well, quite apart from the nit-picking about missles, and re: the topic...

Just released: Scott McClellan has written a book in which he states that 5 people, including Cheney & (evidently)Bush, lied to him (McClellan) directly about the Plame leak, causing him to lie in the press briefings.

I am not surprised, but never thought he'd admit it.

It takes a lot to get ME to agree to bogging the country with proceedings, but what the hell...impeach 'em ALL.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:05 PM

Why did Saddam not fully comply?
It is now known it was part ego and part not wanting to make his military appear totally impotent to Iran.

but still http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/judge_dees.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 04:05 PM

27. According to intelligence, Iraq has retained up to 20 al-Hussein missiles, in breach of UN Security Council Resolution 687. These missiles were either hidden from the UN as complete systems, or re-assembled using illegally retained engines and other components. We judge that the engineering expertise available would allow these missiles to be maintained effectively, although the fact that at least some require re-assembly makes it difficult to judge exactly how many could be available for use. They could be used with conventional, chemical or biological warheads and, with a range of up to 650km, are capable of reaching a number of countries in the region including Cyprus, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel.

Sounds like a little more than "7 inches beyond the legal 'line' "- Over 4 TIMES the allowable range...

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:53 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020924-usia01.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:49 PM

thread.cfm?threadid=77314&messages=119

thread.cfm?threadid=70594&messages=167

thread.cfm?threadid=86221&messages=766#1602213


I see no need to repeat the whole discussion. Since everyone has already decided what the "facts" are without reference to what was physically found ( based on pre-concieved ideas of what they wanted to have found), it is pointless to either correct you (Amos) or attempt to show that the violations cannot be thrown away as " Hardly a salient point", when that fact of those violations IS the point being used to justify the legality of US actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:40 PM

"The prohibited missiles were engines and stage assemblies capable of greater than 180 KM, I think- I'll look the up and get exact figures.
"


When mated to the allowed 150 km range missiles that Saddam had ready to use...

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:39 PM

"It is not clear that even the Iraqis remembered those missiles were there"

Except they were purchased ( from who, one might ask) after 1996....
IN VIOLATION of the sanctions.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:37 PM

1. the stockpile of chemical artillary munitions were ready to be loaded with the active chemicals, which is only done immediately prior to use.

The prohibited missiles were engines and stage assemblies capable of greater than 180 KM, I think- I'll look the up and get exact figures.



So, HOW much beyond the limit imposed by the UN will be allowed before you admit that Saddam was in violation???


After all, the US only sent in just over 130,000 troops- since we have over a million, can you really call that an invasion????

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 03:25 PM

Yes, BB..they in fact DID find a couple of old missles with a technical range greater than 150KM... and YOU have probably stopped 7 inches beyond the legal 'line' at a stop sign...(or not come to an absolute complete stop.

It is not clear that even the Iraqis remembered those missiles were there. Hardly a salient point.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 02:39 PM

I believe they were scraps and fragments of left overs, not actually in any shape to be deemed munitions, BB. Please correct me if I am wrong. Never mind, I am sure you would. But from you, I can handle it readily! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 01:55 PM

"It required the destruction of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, as well as all ballistic missiles with range greater than 150km."

Then you must concede that Saddam DID NOT comply with the terms, as I had posted information previously about the * UN * finding missiles with a greater range, as well as shells for chemical weapons AFTER the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:39 PM

Here's a Wiki synopsis of 687:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 which was on 3 April 1991 set the terms with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf War.
It required the destruction of all chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, as well as all ballistic missiles with range greater than 150km. These actions "represented steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery and the objective of a global ban on chemical weapons"(paragraph 14)
The resolution also required Iraq to honour all its international debts and pay war reparations to Kuwait.
The rest of the resolution reiterated the Iraq sanctions regime begun in UN Security Council Resolution 661, and laid the groundwork for the Oil-for-Food Programme by taking charge of the petroleum exports (paragraph 19).
The resolution was passed by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Ecuador and Yemen) after a very extended meeting.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_687

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:37 PM

Here's the text of Resolution 687. Perhaps Teribus could tell us how in the world he came up with all that gobblegegook he responded to me with:

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

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 12:18 PM

When you combine "full and immediate compliance" and "serious consequences", Teribus, with "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States", and "10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates", and "Decides to remain seized of the matter.", you have what the people that 282RA quoted, including the US ambassador to the UN, said they intended, which was for any violations by Iraq to be referred back to the Security Council for a further resolution that would authorize the use of force.

No such resolution was made, and so therefore the US is in violation of Resolution 1441.

Time to hang up your gloves, Teribus. You are wrong, and you have been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions. The only thing you are convincing anyone of at this point is that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:57 AM

George Bush was not acting in behalf of the USA, T, someone else surely but certainly not in behalf of the people. If he was he'd had laid out the whole truth, nothing but the truth, no spin, no sway, no lies of ommission, no misleading threats. The truth now & as it always has been = WE WERE NEVER IN DANGER FROM ATTACK FROM IRAQ, it doesnt matter what he & his commrades said, thought or were told! WE WERE NOT IN DANGER! Some of us here spoke up & told him, we were called traitors, the world spoke up & told him, he called them his enemies. He was wrong, for that alone he should be impeached. When a CEO failes their company they step down, he should be hanged, like Saddam. He failed US at every turn, every move, moved US into a worst position & he still moves US towards more disaster.
Hang 'em!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:54 AM

Cheney's War 'The
Country Of Men, Not Laws'
Jim Kirwan
11-20-7

Five decades ago this nation was undergoing one of the most pivotal battles over rights and powers in our history. At the center of this campaign was the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) which was expanded on by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950's. The topic was red-baiting, and the nation was spell-bound by the scope of the 'investigations' which were little more than a sanctioned witch-hunt for communists within the government and Hollywood.

Richard Nixon was one of the committee's attorney's, behind the scenes, while Ronald Reagan, as president of the Screen Actor's Guild, was the Committee's man in Hollywood who played a major role in selecting who ought to be questioned before the committee. Through their 'work' these two men went on to become future presidents of the United States. The rein of Joe McCarthy finally came to an end, but not before 'Blacklisting' had become part of the public vernacular, just as 'censorship' became publicly acceptable under 'certain circumstances. It was there here that the specter of an increased executive power first began to gaze upon an expanded role for the office of the presidency.

Cheney's role began under Gerald R. Ford, when he and Rumsfeld first made their places within government felt. Over the intervening years there were many continuing challenges to the expanded power of the presidency, most of which were turned back: until 911 changed the entire nature of this arbitrary discussion. In between Newt Gingrich polarized the congress and set up the mindset of what is still in effect today: a government with an entrenched Congress that remains hostage, to the illusory executive prerogatives, of dubious constitutional standing.

Until George W. Bush took control under the fists of Dick Cheney and the Crazies, no real threat of this presidential coup was even remotely close to an actual takeover of this government. This is where "Cheney's Law" entered into the record books and when the United States ceased to be a Republic and became a Dictatorship of one branch of the government-in effect the only branch of this government. Because at the core of Cheney's Law is the belief that because of 911 the United States must now be 'a government of men not laws.'

Many months before 911, the White House began to spy on US citizens, illegally.

"Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution. "The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch."

After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.

"Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11.

In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power.

"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"

As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital- room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.

But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history." (1)

Throughout this administration numerous clashes between the congress and the president have been threatened, and subpoenas have been used to obtain critically needed information ­ yet the information has not been provided, under threat of the possibility of Executive Privilege. The public is still waiting for the congress and the courts to show some backbone and demand the emails and the documents requested without further delay. Yet from Washington there is only silence amid 'business as usual.'

There is no more important business in this nation today than to prosecute violations of law by the executive or by any other branch of government, to the fullest extent of the law. As the video makes abundantly clear, there are virtually thousands of instances where the president has broken if not shattered the laws of this Republic, and still after almost seven years, the congress is unwilling to do anything of substance about any of these major crimes against the constitution and the people of the United States.

This coup has succeeded in full view of the American public and the world. Congress must forego vacations and dedicate itself to removing these criminal actions from the books, along with all those who are responsible for having created this entirely 'other world' of powers and practices that are utterly abhorrent to the nation and the world, in addition to being illegal by any real study of the laws that have been massively by-passed.

"The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution . . . what the rest of the world looked at for the last 200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world-in checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.

All these violations were impeachable had they been found out at the time but in nearly every case the violations were not found out until [the president was] out of office so we didn't have the exact challenge that we have today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson, Kennedy and others. They were impeachable. They weren't found out in time. But I think it was not their intention, in the crisis situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 1970s. Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but [they] have believed in executive government, single-branch government under an executive president-elected or not-with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in restraint." (2)

This has all been made very clear in the FRONTLINE video ~ so the "facts" involved herein are a matter of public record, and have been for most of the nearly seven years of this administration.

Cheney's Law must be revoked and silenced forever, along with its author and chief architect that should stand trial for his crimes along with the entire cadre of his henchmen in this attempted theft of this nation!

[e-mail]


1) FRONTLINE: Cheney's Law ­ video http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/view/

2) Pentagon Insider Has Dire Warning http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon_insider.html

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:53 AM

BEcause no-one will give him a blow job, probably. Gag at the thought!





A

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 11:39 AM

I remember how easy it was to get rid of Spiro Agnew. I should add that he was axed in a time of war.

Why is it impossible, unwise and treasonous to admonish and impeach this Dick

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:26 AM

Now let's see Guest TIA:

"the UN was about to vote on a resolution (expected to pass) explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq."

Now for the UN Security Council to vote on a resolution "explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq", that would have to mean that that draft resolution would have had to have been proposed, seconded and tabled. Guess what Guest TIA there is no record of such a draft resolution ever having existed - and it was "expected to pass" was it Guest TIA - that would have been extremely doubtful even if such a resolution had been tabled, it would have been stillborn from the outset as both the USA and the UK would have vetoed it (Fortunately it is not only the French, the Russians and Chinese, or should I collectively refer to them as Saddam's trading partners, who have veto rights).

Guest282RA wishes to give the impression that United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 simply related to payment of reparations by Iraq in the aftermath of their invasion of Kuwait and subsequent ejection from that state. This of course is not the case, and I believe that Guest282RA knows it.

UNSC Resolution 687 drew together all previous resolutions relating to Iraq and their invasion of Kuwait, all thirteen of them. It detailed the need to take certain measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter. Those measures were described in thirty-four points that were grouped as follows:

1.        That the measures and Iraq's agreement to comply fully with them would form the basis of a formal cease-fire.

2.        Group A – Measures 2, 3 & 4 relate to formal and binding recognition of the borders defining the states of Iraq and Kuwait and refers to previous signed agreements ("Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters", signed by them in the exercise of their sovereignty at Baghdad on 4 October 1963 and registered with the United Nations and published by the United Nations in document 7063, United Nations, Treaty Series, 1964)

3.        Group B - Measures 5 & 6 relate to the formation and deployment of a UN Monitoring Force to patrol a demilitarised zone 10km wide inside Iraq and 5km inside Kuwait – This Force was never deployed.

4.        Group C – Measures 7 to 14 inclusive relates to Iraqi abandonment of WMD, WMD programmes and disarmament (Includes Nuclear/Chemical/Biological weapons as well as missiles with range greater than 150km) – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures.

5.        Group D – Measure 15 relates to return of Kuwaiti Property – Never complied with.

6.        Group E – Measures 16 to 19 inclusive relates to payment of reparations by Iraq.

7.        Group F – Measures 20 to 29 Sanctions restricting trade with Iraq and arms embargo – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures.

8.        Group G – Measures 30 & 31 relates to repatriation of foreign nationals abducted by Iraq – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of these measures due mainly to the fact that Saddam executed his hostages.

9.        Group H – Measure 32 relates to support for international terrorism or acts of international terrorism – Iraq never fully complied with the requirements of this measure.

10.         Group I – Measures 33 & 34 relate to conditions and timing when the formal cease-fire between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait comes into effect.

Hey Guest282RA (aka Hopeless Asshole) four out of 34 - not too bad, it does give a fairly good indication of what you mistakenly consider to be representative of the resolution content. hey pal, take a look at how many of those sections Saddam/Iraq was never in compliance with, and that, as the UNSC stated was the basis of the cease-fire. So you tell me, if the conditions and terms of the cease-fire are agreed, which they were, and were not complied with, does the cease-fire still hold. I would say no it does not.

Kofi Annan (Masterfully): "Now then Saddam regarding the 13 outstanding resolutions, we are going to give you one last final chance to comply with the Security Councils demands, or there will be serious consequences"

Saddam Hussein: "Awa and bile yer heid ya Numpty"

After a period of 12 months the Iraq file somehow manages to struggle to the top of the pile on Kofi's desk.

Kofi Annan (Slightly less masterfully): "Now then Saddam regarding those outstanding resolutions, we are going to give you another last final, final chance to comply with the Security Councils demands, or there really will be serious consequences"

Saddam Hussein (presenting the finger): "See you ya bam, swivel oan this"

This progresses indefinitely, just keep adding the finals to the final chances and the really, reallys to the serious consequences until it suddenly dawns on anyone sensible observing this pantomime that nothing is ever going to result from this process - such is the power of the United Nations - Non-existent.

Now let's look at this "final chance" which mentioned serious consequences, encapsulated in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which among other things:

Recognised the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security.

So it would seem that if most on this Forum did not recognise the threat that Saddam in Iraq posed the UN certainly did, again my apologies I'll go along with what was the UN's take on the situation at the time.

The UNSC recalled that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Note the language: "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement....all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area."

The UNSC further recalled that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area.

The UNSC deplored the fact that Iraq had not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991).

The UNSC deplored also that the Government of Iraq had failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq.

The UNSC recalled that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein.

The UNSC stated its determination to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance.

Now the "resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance" could only refer to the resolutions already passed, not ones to be made in the future as they would have to be tabled and voted on, they therefore could not be predicted.

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations (that is the invoking part),

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Now what does "full and immediate compliance" mean? President George W Bush, on behalf of the United States of America, left both the United Nations and the Government of Iraq in absolutely no doubt what he took to mean "full and immediate". To the UN it was put in extremely stark terms, you act or we will. No room for doubt there. The UN chose not to act, after three months of UNMOVIC reports detailing that they were not receiving full co-operation from Iraqi Authorities, they thought that they could relapse into the "game" that had been played for the previous eleven years - then to the surprise and consternation of all - The United States of America (a signatory of the Safwan cease-fire) and its coalition partners drawn from 43 countries called a halt to the game and acted. There certainly was going to be no other way to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq. Saddam was given 48 hours to quit the country, he decided to ignore that offer, his choice, but he did ultimately discover what serious consequences meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 10:18 AM

Yes, TIA, and Hanz Bliz had made a speech in the UN saying that Iraq was cooperating with the weapon's inspectors...I don't know how this keep gettin' buried under the carpet but as I recall it was Powell who won the argument with Cheney on the inspectors and then when it looked as if the inspectors were making headway, Cheney bullied Bush into pullin' the plug on 'um, tellin' them to get the heck out 'cause "Shock 'n Awe" was on the way...

"Shock 'n Awe"... What am joke... What was Bush thinkin'??? It was just going to be like a big fireworks display, everyone would cheer, go home and be happy???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 20 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM

I remember distinctly that Bush invaded Iraq in somewhat of a hurry because the UN was about to vote on a resolution (expected to pass) explicitly telling the USA *not* to invade Iraq. A far cry from the supposed "UN authorization" Teribus keeps hyping.

In fact (in February 2003 -- I think -- immediately after Powell's infamous propaganda fest) the US sponsored a UN resolution that would have explicitly authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it garnered little support in the General Assembly (and was opposed by almost all of the NATO allies), and faced a certain veto from France and Russia in the Security Council. To avoid the embarrasment of a failed resolution, and the implied rejection of the invasion authorization that such failure would provide, the USA withdrew the resolution without a vote. No doubt alarmed by US war-mongering, the UN then began working on a resolution explicitly *not* authorizing force. It was then that the US invaded - quick before such a resolution could be voted on.

All claims of supposed "UN Authorization" conveniently ignore this sequence of events (as well as the wording of the supposed "authorization" resolutions that Carol C has now posted perhaps six times in the last four years - to no avail of course).

So, the US violated two UN resolutions in order to enforce them, and did exactly the opposite of what the UN was explicitly asking them to do in order to comply with the UN's wishes. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:54 PM

Far from Teribus proving his case for UN resolutions sanctioning the US to invade Iraq, he's actually cited two, 687 and 1441, that prove, if anything, that Bush should be impeached.

He told the world that Iraq violated 687--that was a blatant lie. He used that imaginary breach to introduce a resolution that he hoped would legitimize his lie--1441. Then to prevent it from being discredited, stopped the inspections and launched his invasion to prevent the UN from concluding that Iraq had no WMD.

These are not the actions of a man acting on bad intelligence. These are the actions of someone determined to manipulate the situation in any way he could get away with in order to carry out his objective--to invade and occupy Iraq. These actions are in themselves illegal and therefore impeachable.

These actions have destabilized an already fragile situation. These actions have displaced millions and ruined their lives. These actions have cost hundreds of thousands of lives--well over 4000 of them being American. Among the survivors, these actions have, again, ruined their lives. These actions have provided an extremely valuable training ground for thousands and thousands of terrorists and future terrorists. These actions have allowed unscrupulous crooks to make off with billions of dollars billed several times over for fraudulent services never performed once much less 5 times. These actions have allowed these thieves and con men to get away scot-free. These actions have driven a once great and proud army into the ground. These actions have mired two nations into a political/military/economic quicksand neither has any hope of escaping. All over a pack of long discredited lies.

These actions we hold to be self-evidently impeachable.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:33 PM

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.

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/Resolution_1441

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:30 PM

Resolution 687 simply laid out how Iraq would make reparations after the Gulf War. It had to disarm and it had to pay back Kuwait. The only way it could be used to justify an invasion was if Iraq did not disarm. That was precisely why the UN inspectors were there in the first place!! They were trying to see if Iraq was complying with 687 and, as far as they could see, yes.

Resolution 1441 was introduced by the US and the UK--the very countries seeking to instigate a military confrontation and occupation of Iraq. It lied to the world that Iraq was not living up to 687 when, in fact, all the evidence (or rather lack of) says that it Iraq did indeed comply.

Nor did any of the 15 or so countries that unanimously passed 1441 agree in any way that the resolution allowed the US to make war--and that opinion was shared by the US and stated outright by John Negroponte.

So if Bush used 1441 to go to war, it was one made up of his own lies--er, I mean--"bad intelligence." It is mystifying that a document that boldly asserted that Iraq was rearming with WMD and blowing off 687 would need to be "interpreted" by the US as a case for a preemptive strike. It hadn't yet been proven and Bush called off the inspections before they were finished because the finding were not going to support 1441. He had to strike right then and there or miss his window or the UN would have concluded there was no evidence for 1441 and killed it.

He had no case for using 687 and 1441 as one for war. It was not simply an interpretive error--it was blatant twisting of intelligence specifically performed in order for the US to have a pretense for invading Iraq and overthrowing its sovereign govt.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 08:03 PM

Teribus is flat out lying, he's not giving half truths. This one, for example...

If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act.

I have posted resolution 1441 and quoted the language that the UN gave member nations instructing them to honor the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq", and to "to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates". It is not possible to "invoke" a resolution while violating it.

If Teribus is willing to lie about this, we can be pretty confident that most of the other "facts" that he puts before us are also lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:43 PM

Well, Teribus, I simply do NOT have time this week to tear apart your critique(s) of my opinion. The short version is...you continuously re-frame what I say to sound weak & awkward & uninformed, then reply to assertions I did NOT make. This is a pretty old technique, and I have to admit, you do it better than most. (one example - "Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come." No, that is NOT implied by what I said...but it does assume that there will BE a serious attack - something I tended to doubt in the first place. We can disagree whether it is likely or not, but you can't USE it to knock down my position.


One of the things it does is put ME in the position of having to type twice as much as you to answer you by saying "That is NOT what I said" and then to clarify what I said, then to dispute what YOU seem to be saying.

You make statements that are phrased to sound like obviously truths, but which are merely linking YOUR interpretation to half-truths. I don't don't care to struggle with that way of arguing.

Somewhere in there are just points on which we flatly differ,(beyond matters of 'fact'), and perhaps it's best to just leave it at that.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 07:39 PM

>>If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act.<<

Okay. Now can you quote for us the relevant statements that the US says gave it the go-ahead to invade Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 06:09 PM

"Have you ever been to the Middle East?" - Yes, I have worked there often as well in other muslim countries around the World.

And yes Guest282RA You really are a hopeless asshole.

"Sorry to disappoint you but the response you're getting is the one above. Especially the last two sentences."

You mean that you are a TWAT, or are George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed who knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building.

If the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 687, which we know they did, and if they issued 1441, which we know they did, and the USA invoked those Resolutions in the face of Iraqi non-compliance then they had the Authority of the United Nations to act. The UN did not have to give any instructions - it never does. The UN did not have to say directly to the USA, "Go get 'em", as both you and Ron seem to fondly imagine - not the way it works.

Oh and Guest282RA you have never seen me period.

Now tell me Guest282RA how was it exactly that us Brits embarrassed ourselves down there in the Falklands, outnumbered 2:1, with only 12 aircraft air-combat-capable operating some 8,000 miles from home through one supply base. Now come on Guest282RA just tell us how we embarrassed ourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:55 PM

>>The anti-Bush, anti-war, chattering left on this Forum have worked themselves into a lather bleating about how all the muslim Arabs hate us because of what Bush has done. Utter crap, they hated you long before that, they declared their war on you long before that, or was the attack in Beirut and the first attack on the WTC in 1993 just a figment of everyones imagination.<<

So because a handful of fanatics attacked us, that means we can fabricate intelligence to justify invading a country that was no threat to us, destabilize all of the Middle East, drive literally millions out of their homes, get hundreds of thousands of people (many of them women and children) killed, hold people in prison indefinitely and torture them as much as we want. Have you ever been to the Middle East? Well, I have and I was amazed at how much they liked us. The average Muslim there basically liked the US and had a positive view of us. They don't now. THAT's what we're talking about when we say they hate us now. But, of course, to you, there's no difference between a fanatical killer of Muslim persuasion and an average Middle Eastern person who gets up in the morning and goes to work and tries to provide for his family and who just wants a good life same as you and me--and happens to be Muslim. You really are a hopeless asshole, aren't you? Yes, you are.

>>Oh, hang on wait a minute we'll probably get some TWAT post and tell us that that attack had something to do with some dark sinister corporation's scheme to further their goal of world domination that was only possible because George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building.<<

Sorry to disappoint you but the response you're getting is the one above. Especially the last two sentences.

>>No "UN Authorisation" for any of them - TRUE?<<

True, as far as I know.

>>The reason for that is that no "UN Authorisation" was ever required.<<

To my knowledge you are exactly correct. Now, can you answer the question below with a simple yes or no?

Was any authorization by the UN ever given to Bush to invade?

You have STILL not answered that. NOBODY here is disputing that Bush needed UN authorization. At least I'm not and Ron is not if I understand him correctly. What we're asking you is to back up your assertion that Bush did in fact HAVE such authorization. THAT is what we are asking.

You were wrong. Why can't you just admit it? You are super-anal about the need to be correct about every little thing. You must have driven your family out of their minds as a kid. Christ, I thought I was bad. Even I admit to being wrong as much as I hate to do it but I at least have enough integrity to admit when I can't deny what is in front of my face. But you...good lord, I've never seen anyone like you and I hope I never do again.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 10:50 AM

Dianavan, according to what Teribus has said in this thread, the president of the US doesn't need to feel threatened. He (or she) only needs to feel that US interests are threatened. What that means is that (according to Teribus' wording), if the US feels that they might lose a pineapple plantation somewhere in Central America because the people of that country have voted to bar foreign interests from owning pineapple plantations in their country, the US has a right to invade and occupy that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 04:54 AM

Unfortunately Guest282RA, the situation the USA found itself in in both Afghanistan and Iraq has a great deal to do with Bill Clinton and his Administrations handling of things, which were ineffectual, indiscriminate and ill-considered.

The anti-Bush, anti-war, chattering left on this Forum have worked themselves into a lather bleating about how all the muslim Arabs hate us because of what Bush has done. Utter crap, they hated you long before that, they declared their war on you long before that, or was the attack in Beirut and the first attack on the WTC in 1993 just a figment of everyones imagination. Oh, hang on wait a minute we'll probably get some TWAT post and tell us that that attack had something to do with some dark sinister corporation's scheme to further their goal of world domination that was only possible because George W Bush's second cousin fifteen times removed knew someone who's Aunt's brother was a janitor in the building.

Subsequent to the signing of the cease-fire agreement at Safwan and issue of United Nations Security Councile resolution 687, of which paragraph 33 states:

"Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);"

Hope you all note that the UN is not mentioned, whereas Iraq, Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait are. That, for those a bit slow on the uptake, clearly states the parties involved in the cease-fire and for the benefit of Ron, Guest282RA, Dianavan and CarolC, shows that the UN ain't one of them. If any of the signatories to that cease-fire held Iraq to be violation of the terms agreed, then they were free to take whatever action they saw necessary to bring Iraq into a state of compliance, that was what "grave consequences" meant in 1991, roughly the same as "serious consequences" was taken to mean in 2002.

For Guest282RA's benefit the following is the list of occassions when this was invoked subsequent to issue of UNSC Resolution 687 on 3rd April 1991:

1991 - Summer: Royal Marines inserted into Northern Kurdish region to provide a protective screen to permit Kurdish refugees to flee Saddam's forces

1991 - Start of Northern and Southern "No-Fly" Zones to deter air attacks on Kurdish and Shia population of Iraq

1996 - Intensification of Air effort within "No-Fly" Zones in response to Iraqi interference with UNSCOM inspection efforts

1998 - UNSCOM Inspectors withdrawn followed by "Desert Fox"

2002 - Summer: Build up of US and Coalition Troops in Kuwait

2002 - September: Saddam invites return of UN inspectors (UNMOVIC)

2003 - March: US and Coalition Troops invade Iraq.

No "UN Authorisation" for any of them - TRUE?

The reason for that is that no "UN Authorisation" was ever required.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Nov 07 - 02:26 AM

Teribus -

Please explain what you mean by a declared threat or "the threat described by your current President."

Just because someone says they are being threatened, doesn't mean they are being threatened.

Are you saying that Bush can invade any country if he feels threatened? Where do you think he got that information? For all I know, he was being informed by Shaha Riza.

I thought it had already been established that he acted on scanty and unreliable intelligence. Whose fault is that?

You'll have to come up with a better excuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:10 PM

Teribus--

It should be obvious--even to you---that the UN only has the power nations are willing to delegate to it. I hope you can grasp that complex point.

And it can OK use of force by member states, if it chooses.   It did not however, do so in this case--it did not grant its authority to Mr. Bush to invade Iraq.

Therefore your fig leaf has fallen off. And what's underneath is ghastly.

It appears to be now just a question of whether you are so obtuse as not to understand this, or just desperate to save your incredibly tender ego, which can't stand even one admission you are wrong.



Also, as I've said earlier, you and the other Bush apologists should be thanking the UN every day. It was only the UN's willingness to act as honest broker which made possible in 2004 an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency.--and that therefore the US commitment would not be open-ended. And that in turn gave the lie to the idea that Iraq was Vietnam Part II---at least until after the 2004 election, conveniently enough for Mr. Bush.

Without the UN's good offices it's obvious Bush would have lost in 2004. Even as it was, the election was close. It would not have taken many more voters' fear of a second Vietnam to make the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 04:47 PM

>>Guest282RA do not put words into my mouth or have the bloody nerve to tell me what I mean,<<

Or what? You're gonna get really really mad? I'll do what I like and if you don't like it, I guess you can...oh, I don't know...jump in a lake?

>>especially if you cannot be bothered to read the text you seem to so bloody keen to argue about.<<

Because you're so bloody keen to respond. You don't really think I give two shits what you think about anything, do you? You're someone who has to be right about every single thing and that is somebody that is NEVER to be taken seriously.

>>Very simple rule in life if you believe in equality - "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the Gander". The question I asked before if the justification for Clinton to attack Iraq on a number of occasions was UNSC 687 and there was no uproar about it, why all of a sudden did Bush need a special dispensation in 2003 when exactly the same reason was invoked backed up by 1441 "Iraq's Last Chance".<<

Once again, you are not answering the question and continuing to place the blame on Clinton.

You know how to avoid that, Teribus? YOU QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR WHAT BUSH DOES!!! And how do you do that? By not even mentioning Clinton at all. This has NOTHING to do with Clinton. If you can't defend Bush's actions without resorting to hiding behind Clinton, then you don't have a case. Now wasn't that easy?

>>By the bye Guest282RA if you do not believe in Law based on precedent, then whatever law you do believe in is subjective and worthless.<<

And another thing, when you're getting your ass handed to you in an argument, DON'T try to change the subject. Now ANSWER THE QUESTION or admit defeat. (This will be good!)

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 03:34 PM

Bobert, Dick Cheney was where in the CIA in the latter part of 1997 and during January and early February of 1998? Because that is when intelligence Agencies of the United States of America first identified Iraq under Saddam Hussein a threat, in the aftermath of 911 they merely reconfirmed their earlier evaluation.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 11:06 AM

Well, T.... Seems that you just can't seem to grasp the concept of "office speak"... The Washington Post descibed the phenomana as "culture"... Strange word, same concept...

In the aftermath of 9/11, Dick Cheney alll but lived at the CIA... Records of just how mnay days and with whom he spoke are being kept a secret under Execitive Priviledge, just as the records of the folks who helped write out nation's socalled "Energy Policy"...

But here's the way it really went down and historians will get it correct as the Bush/Cheney War Machine was purdy sloppy about covering it's footsteps... Intellegent analysts have already come forward saying that they were pressured by Cheney to dig up stuff that could fit in with the PR propaganda campaign to whip up war sentiments in the general population...

But not all of the intellegence folks bucked and the Washigton Post has reported in several articles over the last couple or so years that they voiced their grave misgivings that what what being used in the propagande blitz was not accurate and /or wasn't presented in the manner that it was given to Bush/Cheney...

This is the way it went down... You can scream you head off and write reems and reems of garbage but this is the way it went down... Only a "True Believer", who is incapable of accepting facts that would force one to re-evaluate one's positions, can continue to ***believe*** that the Bush/Cheney War Machine didn't cherry pick and fabicate stuff in making a case to invade Iraq...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 06:05 AM

Rather a large number of inaccuracies and contradictions there BillD:

"The Plame/Wilson incident" I believe was a damn sight later that February 1998. By the bye BillD it was in 1998 that regime change in Iraq became official US State Policy.

"Congress gave the president the benefit of the doubt, because he was SUPPOSED to have clear, 'slam-dunk' information gathered by his masterful intelligence community."

Please correct me if I am wrong here BillD but in the immediate wake of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, the combined security and intelligence agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying what constituted the greatest threat to the nation. At the same time in parallel the Congressional Security Committee were requested to evaluate exactly the same thing. They both came up with the same scenario, a three part recipe for disaster to which the USA was particularly vulnerable as had been demonstrated by the attacks of 911, i.e. an international terrorist organisation; a rogue government or regime; access to WMD material, technology or to the actual weapons themselves. The Security Committee consisting of members from both houses identified a short list in order of merit it ran Iraq, Iran, North Korea as most likely candidates to fulfil the "rogue government" part of the axis. Congress did not "give anybody the benefit of the doubt" - They actually identified the most likely candidate as Iraq and presented that finding to the President.

"HE (The President) was SUPPOSED have" - wrong way round BillD the evidence and the evaluations were given to the President.

"HIS masterful intelligence community" - wrong again BillD, the security and intelligence agencies were those of the United States of America, they most certainly were not the "President's Men" damn near all of them had been in their jobs for years, they were the same men that had advised Bill Clinton of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq three years before.

Now you as President of the United States of America, a nation just recently subject to the most devastating attack carried out by foreign nationals on American soil, are advised by the security and intelligence srvices of yhe country and by an independent evaluation carried out by Congress that Iraq under Saddam Hussein poses the greatest threat to the nation - You would ignore that??? If you blythely ignore that advice BillD, that would be an impeachable offence.

Where did you say anything to the effect that "The Axis of Evil" poses no threat? This sounds awfully like it BillD - "Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until.. etc,etc"

You feel that the world isn't any safer because of what has transpired. But the demonstrable fact is that it is safer BillD. Now let's see what you advocate as what should have been the way forward:

"**IF** that "axis of evil" seriously tried anything, we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours."

Really BillD, what ability, without the enforced choice "Either with us or against us", without international co-operation because of Jimmy Carter the US security services were completely blind when it came to human intel relating to the middle-east in 2001. You are not now because counter to what you may believe most of the world's security and intelligence gathering agencies are firmly on the side of the US, their governments had to make a choice. Use of "Air Power", Eh BillD? That's your solution, that's your response - Again correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that what Bill Clinton tried on numerous occasions during the 90's and in so doing singularly failed to protect either the United States of America, the interests of the United States of America and the allies of the United States of America.

With an asymetric "Axis of Evil" type attack as described BillD, who is it that you make "very sorry in about 48 hours"? On what proof do you attack anybody and where would you attack them?. Clinton did that and knocked out a powder milk factory and killed a few civilians. In the aftermath of 911 Bush was not stupid enough just to go and bomb Afghanistan, he first opened a line of communications to the Northern Alliance and then helped them to remove both Al-Qaeda and the Taleban from their position of power in that country.

Now here's the biggest contradiction of all - you say that you don't feel any safer but at the same time you state that -"I am not a bit convinced that we need fear any major attacks" Oh sorry BillD, again I thought you claimed that you had never dismissed the threat posed by "The Axis of Evil". Don't know about you Bill but sounds awfully like it to me. Or is it that you feel that you need not fear any major attacks because as a nation you are now alert and that proper measures are exercised - One question for you BillD, who was it put you as a nation at your current state of alertness, who was it implemented those proper measures. They certainly would not have existed following your recipe for inevitable disaster, i.e. "swaggering around, threatening air strikes", because correct me if I am wrong but "we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours" is precisely that isn't it - "swaggering around, threatening air strikes". You say that it, "just builds animosity and makes it MORE likely some group will keep pot-shoting at us...most likely in places like embassies in foreign countries." You mean exactly as happened throughout the 1990's BillD. Since March 2003 BillD how many times have your embassies been bombed? How many attacks have been carried out on the mainland of the United States of America.

Now let's go back to the "piffle":

"Piffle! There WAS no threat from Iraq until WE went in there with faked justification,(without any resolution), and created conditions that LURED various Al Qaida operatives there, because it was not a LOT more convenient to kill Americans and cost them lots of money."

Your solution in the face of a declared threat appears to be to basically sit back and wait for the attack to come. That approach has not served you in the past and would be disastrous when faced with the threat described by your current President in his State of the Union Address in January 2002. By sitting back and waiting you surrender initiative to your enemies, it is far, far better to engage your enemy whenever and wherever you can find him. Give them something to think about. By all means lure them with their own ideology and propaganda into fighting you on a ground of your choosing. Cut the ground out from under them, as long as you do that their main concern is their own survival not attacking you at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:32 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM

UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize any nation or nations to attack Iraq on the basis of that resolution or any other resolutions. It says:

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Then it talks about the decisions it has made with regard to inspections and what Iraq needs to do to be in compliance with the resolution, and it:

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates...

...and then it says that it:

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

And that's that. The US violated the terms of this resolution by not keeping it's commitment to honor the territorial integrity of Iraq, and by interfering in the inspection process by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, by attacking Iraq and thus ending the ability of the inspectors to continue to do their job.

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

It's not possible to uphold a UN resolution by violating a UN resolution.


* I changed the clicky to the pdf with the actual resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Nov 07 - 12:18 AM

Resolution 1441 has specific language in it instructing all member nations to honor the sovereignty and borders of the other countries, and to not interfere with the work of the inspectors. This means that according to 1441, the US was not only not authorized to attack Iraq, but it was required to not do so, and it also means that the US is in violation of 1441 because of its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

We've already covered this ground many times, but Teribus seems to think that our memories are as short as his is.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:45 PM

"....the combined intelligence agencies of the United States of America correctly believed otherwise and briefed their President accordingly."

well, they SAID they believed that...but even then, clear evidence was available that proved otherwise! The Plame/Wilson incident proved they only looked for what they wanted to find. Congress gave the president the benefit of the doubt, because he was SUPPOSED to have clear, 'slam-dunk' information gathered by his masterful intelligence community. Too bad they totally blew it!

"Why is it BillD, that you completely dismiss the threat that "The Axis of Evil" poses? Why is it impossible? Why can it not happen?"

Where did I say anything like that? I am aware of the 'bad guys' in the world, but I also know there are more bad guys than we can wage war on...Iran, N. Korea, Afghanistan (even with a supposed ally in charge), Syria (probably), ...why not Venezuela, too? and Somalia? and what ARE we to do about Pakistan? and 8-10 more who are no immediate danger, but just naughty folks who treat their citizens poorly? Like Myanmar...are we to chastise them? (When it became obvious that Iraq HAD no WMDs, Bush retreated behind.."Isn't the world safer with Saddam gone?"...well, is it? Doesn't feel like it to me.

And **IF** that "axis of evil" seriously tried anything, we have the ability, with air power, to make them very sorry in about 48 hours.

Nope, Teribus...I am not a bit convinced that we need fear any major attacks...which is not to say we should not stay alert and exercise proper measures to see it stays that way....but swaggering around, threatening air strikes, just builds animosity and makes it MORE likely some group will keep pot-shoting at us...most likely in places like embassies in foreign countries.


All I can hope for is to get Bush and his crew's fingers off the trigger(s) and get some sane Democrat in.

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:12 PM

This administration has shot itself in the face, opps, sorry, in the foot! Sorry, that should be in it's friend's foot, no,no,no in it's friend's face. Hell, might as well be shot US all in our asses! Wait,,,,,,,,,

Impeach them now before we all end up shooting ourselves in the!!!!!!!!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 10:00 PM

Will you quit with the "Clinton's attacks on Iraq" line of justification. First off it was just that an attack & not a decleared war, 2nd, 2 wrongs does make a right, it doesn't even set a "precedent" & 3rd Clinton hasn't been in office in the past 7yrs & when he left we were NOT at war, we did have a surplus, the US was much more respected internationally than at present, our civil rights were still intact, the job market was healthy, global warming was an issue as well as climate change, the educational system was better & more affordable & our health system even though not in what I'd consider good shape (thought they tried but met up with to many roadblocks) was far better than today. You may dislike Clinton all you want but when he left, he left us a far better nation than we are today. Bush could've/should've built on that! Any incoming leader would give their eye-teeth to be left a nation in the shape Clinton left ours but NO, Bush couldn't build on that, he had to fuck it up royally, he had to do it his way, he had to buck the UN, the international community, the UN, he couldn't listen to anyone except those spouting what he wanted to hear. So he, his cabinet, his right & left hand asses had to plunge US into a out of controled tail spin that we may not pull out of.

While we'er at it please stop with he relied on the best info available atthe time slop. He didn't! He ruined the careers of more than a few when they came up with opposing info. He even ruined Powell, the only 1 on his staff that had integrity! I won't get into Flame & her hubby, the "NewClear Flasher from Africa". Bush should've made dam sure any & all info was verified, checked all sour sources, not tried to strong arm the media & silence everybody & everything that spoke in opposition. Any great leader knows well enough to have an open mind & to LISTEN to all reports, this man can't even read & he for sure can't hear the advise of others unless they agree. Bush put more spin on his promo of the war & all that followed in the aftermath that the Bushites are lost in the worldwind of flatulent & hindsight.


"Barry Finn: "He tried the UN way & he didn't convince them, they weren't biting."

Oh but he did convince them Barry Finn, how otherwise can you explain the unanimous vote given for Resolution 1441. What next stopped that resolution being carried out was interference by Iraq's main trading partners France, Russia and China, who held out the opportunity to Saddam Hussein to resume his course. They would thwart US moves in the Security Council while working to get UN sanctions against Iraq removed.""

This is double talk Teribus, you're blowing smoke out of your ass with this.

You admit here that the resolution was stopped & thwarted, that means what, please explain?????????????

Where is that wording in that resolution that says the UN gives it's OK to an invasion of Iraq? Not what might be used if Iraq was in non-compliance but the wording that states the UN is in support of the US's invasion of Iraq? Where is the statement that the UN is in support of the US's invasion of Iraq? I needed to repeat that so you won't think that I'm asking for more of your double talk!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Impeachment Action Needed (quickly)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Nov 07 - 07:15 PM

It surprises me that you are still using that Safwan red herring, Terribus, considering that it has been thoroughly debunked here in this forum...


Subject: RE: BS: Saddam should be charged or released
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 04:06 PM

There were three cease-fire arrangements following the 1990-1991 Gulf war. UNSC Resolution 686, the Safwan Accords, and UNSC Resolution 687. The terms of the Safwan Accords have never been formally published. The Safwan Accords:

"Refer to the cease-fire agreements made between allied military commanders and iraqi officers, under the provisions of Resolution 686, above. On March 3 1991, the U.S. commander, U.S. Army General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, and other allied commanders met with Iraqi offecers at the town of Safwan in southern Iraq and agreed on several matters: return of prisoners of war, removal of mine fields, and procedures to prevent any further outbreaks of fighting between Iraqi and allied forces. The Safwan Accords also provided for a temporary cease-fire line, with the understanding that allied forces would remain in sourthern Iraq until a permanent cease-fire agreement came into effect."

That permanent cease-fire agreement was UNSC Resolution 687, "which established a formal cease-fire and imposed a number of long-term requirements on Iraq."

So UNSC Resolution 687 is the agreement that Iraq would have been in violation of, along with Resolution 1441. The Safwan Accords were superceded by Resolution 687, the terms of the Safwan Accords were never formally published, and from what I have been able to see of the things they covered, they became obsolete after Resolution 687 was adopted. So again, it was a UN resolution that Iraq was in violation of, not the Safwan Accords, and therefore it was the perogative of the UN to decide how Iraq's violations of the relevant UNSC Resolutions should be dealt with.


Subject: RE: BS: New thread on WMD
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 07 Jul 04 - 10:53 AM

Teribus, under the terms of the temporary Safwan ceasefire, it (the Safwan ceasefire) became null and void as soon as UNSC Resolution 687 established a permanent ceasefire. This (UNSC Resolution 687) is the ceasefire agreement that Iraq would have had to be in violation of since the Safwan ceasefire had become obsolete many years before the timeframe in question.

Since it was a UN Resolution that was being violated, it was the perogative of the UNSC to determine what the consequences should be, not the perogative of only one UN member nation..