Bad Lumpy!
Politicians’ are supposed to kiss babies, not eat them. A candidate eating babies would not go down well with the elctorate.
Iscariot, technically Britain and the U.S. DID go in with UN approval. Resolution 1441 allowed us to use military force if Saddam was in material breach. The Kay report showed he was in military breach. What we didn’t get from the UN was an additional resolution that cited Saddam’s areas of material breach and then sounded the call to go in.
In 1991, John Kerry called the coalition President HW Bush assembled phony and deficient. In 1998, John Kerry told President Clinton to use military force against Iraq with/without allies. In 2003, John Kerry told President GW Bush that his coalition was phony and deficient because it didn’t resemble his father’s coaltion in 1991.
Just so we’re all on the same page here…
“John Edwards for President”
Brian, …couldn’t give a rats arse about Kerry…
and “technically” is a wonderful word …you’ve got to love semantics
B Smith - I’d like to see a cite for Kerry’s statements to Clinton regarding pushing for war- just curious.
Without clever use of semantics (“a gathering threat” etc…) this administration would could potentially have several members under real investigation, and not by some diversionary commission.
They often leave the more obvious lies to their mouthpieces at Fox News et al.
tme…enough already with your Liberal bullshitt…You have no clue obviously because you voted for that punk ass bitch clinton twice…WHAT DID HE DO FOR THIS COUNTRY? Not a damn thing but make us a laughing stock around the world…he was a bitch (still is) gore is a bitch and hilary has more balls than the both of them…I served in the Corp under those lame ass pussies…went to Haiti and Bosnia For what? because that cock sucker got caught doing shitt and needed some drama to take the heat off of him…Lets see they got caught bringing in illegal contributions from china…sold a naval base in san diego (right across from mcrd san diego ) to the chinese…Killed people in waco (used the military against civilians)…killed off everyone involved in his former realestate dealings…sent us to haiti with no return fire policies…(got many wounded) for nothing I might add…sent us to bosnia ( for nothing but to get shot at) then to add insult to injury gave purple hearts to people who should have been court martialed…Bush the worst president ever …DICK what world have you been living in!
Iscariot, I did not take the word “technically” from either administration’s talking points. The word that in fact applies at the UN is “legally.” I chose “technically” on purpose to underscore the diplomatic situation: U.S. and U.K. were legally supported in their invasion by the Security Council, which is all that’s supposed to count according to the institional framework of the UN. However, they contradicted “the will” of many of the countries on the Security Council, who wanted to delay or prevent war, for various reasons (ranging from the most self-serving to the most humanitarian).
Kuri, obviously John Kerry wasn’t talking about a full-scale invasion but instead a massive missile assault:
“Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the Gulf War coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.”
Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp.S12254-S12255
And in Sept 1996, he said, but I don’t have the source at hand: “The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region and constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not.”
The phrases “gathering threat” and “before the threat is imminent” are not semantic legal protections for the administration! The claim of imminency (either made or conveyed) to the general population is not an issue of impeachment–as it wasn’t when Bill Clinton told the nation he did not have “sexual relations.” The impeachable offense would be willfully withholding, falsifying or obsfuscating military intelligence to Congress. And so we’d have to address each item of intelligence, how it was handled and by whom. One issue I’m investigating is whether Colin Powell’s case to the UN somehow counts as congressional testimony. Those “aluminum tubes”…
And Kuri, remember that John Kerry was on the committee with security clearance which saw the dissenting view on WMD. One difference between you and me is that I compare the transparency of Bush’s arguments to the knowing acquiescence of the Congressmen who voted for the war. Everybody had about the same data on WMD and international terrorists. Everybody understood the TACIT policy objectives of the Bush administration [help democratize the Middle East, punish Saddam for leading the only regime that regulary attacked us, bring down a lionized hero of Muslim Totalitarianism, etc.]. Everybody knew who stood to gain economically. EVERYBODY. Try to accuse our President of shadowy plots only where you can’t find transparency.
“What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use that arsenal.” That was Bill Clinton in 1998 on Saddam Hussein and WMD. Didn’t Bush tell us the exact same thing? It’s important to me not to villify George Bush for what I celebrated in Bill Clinton.
Wait, Kuri, did you want the instances of John Kerry talking about a unilateral assault on Iraq, or each of the occasions when he urged President Clinton to take military action?
Brian,
U.S. and U.K. were legally supported in their invasion by the Security Council, which is all that’s supposed to count according to the institional framework of the UN.
True. very true. But you have to concede that even by a legal definition what they went in on was tenuous in the extreme, it is like, using the definition of ‘material’ by way of example, sggesting that the jar of Colmans Extra Hot and Spicy English Mustard at the back of Saddam’s fridge constitutes the potential for a biological weapons programme…becasue teh word Mustard is document in the houehold papers - namely, the week’s shopping list.
Certainly, though, it was to the letter and not as you suggest later, the intent of the UN Charter.
for various reasons (ranging from the most self-serving to the most humanitarian).
Show me ONE country in the UN who doesn’t act for selfish reasons, even in the propogation of a humanitarian stance.
shit i love New Zealand.
War, whats that? guns, huh?
We are to busy drinking beer and playing rugby to bomb countries (that dont even have WOMD)
Iscariot,
“Material breach” means that Iraq was breaking the conditions that UN resolutions placed on him as the the requirements for an armistice after Iraq lost the Gulf War. It only matters that an example of “material breach” is authentic; it doesn’t matter how minor one considers that example. (BTW, what example are you thinking of?) If there’s a problem with the conditions of the armistice, Iraq or some other country (Russia, Germany, France, etc.) goes to the Security Council and asks that they amend the armistice slightly, so Iraq is no longer in violation.
“Show me ONE country in the UN who doesn’t act for selfish reasons, even in the propogation of a humanitarian stance.”
This I ABSOLUTELY agree with. I guess I could have said “mostly selfish” or “egregiously selfish reasons.” BTW, have you been following the money trail of Saddam’s oil-for-food tickets to the anti-War politicians and business interests in Europe?