Kay concludes Iraq in obvious breach of 1441...as do Senators...

who interview him...

They found 40+ missles capable of delivering WMD at various long & short distance targets...

These were missles not accounted for in the massive document turnover that Iraq unleashed on the UN...

There were a dozen at first, and then 2 dozen later...

This finding was proof positive that Iraq was in material breach of 1441, which was built on the back of two previous UN Resolutions, both of which Iraq had been in violation of since the Clinton Administration, and both of which called for the USE OF FORCE FROM THE UN TO REMOVE THE REGIME.

So, in other words...Iraq was lying, they breached three UN force backed resolutions, and the world community still wanted to drag its feet after 10 plus years of violations, and the US finally made the UN pay the piper...but we were misled on the reasons we went to war?

Looks like Kay and those Senators admitted they found proof of a violation of 1441...

What more reason was there than breach of that Resolution?

 

You're confusing the issue with facts. The Bush haters here don't let that stop them.

 

Bush attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the USA. He said that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons, and had programs in place to produce massive amounts of chemical and biolgical weapons. He told Americans that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were allies and working together.

In other words, if we did not attack, Saddam intended to attack us with WMD. End of story.

Right wing lemmings now want to draw all kinds of technicalities to justify the war.

So what if Saddam was in "technical violation" of a UN resolution. (Israel has been in "technical violaition" of a major UN resolution for thirty years.) The United Nations itself did NOT support war to enforce this resolution. This repeated attempt by right wing lemmings to say that Bush attacked under the authority of the UN is deceptive and unscrupulous.

The basic fact is that THE UN DID NOT SUPPORT THE WAR.

And in fact the UN has been proven right: there was no need to go to war. Saddam was no threat to America or any other country. The sanctions had worked: they had disarmed Saddam Hussein.

 

Because of ostriches like CB66 with their heads in the sand there is a big hole in the ground at lower Manhattan.

 

i wont go so far as to blame people like him, but i do think we need to remember we are at war, and if you are a guy like saddam, who likes to kill innocent people and pays off the familes of suicide bombers, you should be killed, wmd or not. we are at war.

view from my building in jersey on 9/11:

http://martingrimes74.tripod.com/wtcstuff/12.jpg

may have to cut and paste.

 

So now Bush invaded to protect a bunch of Arabs being mistreated? So when does the Lone Ranger from Texas in the White House set off righting the wrongs of the brutalization of North Koreans by their government?

When does he save the Southern Sudanese Christians from their government? When does he save the citizens of a half a dozen other African countries who are brutalized far worse than the Iraqis ever were?

Only an idiot would believe that right wing nuts like Bush and Cheney invade countries to save a bunch of Arabs. They invade because that country has something they want, pure and simple.

You will tell any lie to defend Bush. Bush told us why he was attacking--he attacked because Saddam was planning on a WMD attack against America. Since that has been proven false, you move on to the next fabrication of the facts.

 

Cotton Bowl, why don't you just........oh, never mind.

 

i have described to you numerous times why we invaded iraq, and you always change the subject. so i tell you one last time.

credibility matters. if we broker a cease fire with another country which is based on a set of rules they must abide by, then we dont hold them to those agreements, we lose credibility. then later when we threaten a country that does something terrible, like harbor terrorists for example, they will have no reason to listen to us. and its the most important thing that they do listen.

when our words become meaningless and we do not follow through, then our enemies will take advantage. even lieberman understands that.

 

Bush said we had to attack Iraq because if we didn't Saddam Hussein was a "direct threat" to America. He said he was building massive amounts of chemical and biolgogical weapons and was also building nuclear bombs to use against America.

He said that Saddam was working with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida to attack America.

It is funny how you right wingers disavow all of these statements from Bush. It sounds like Nazi Germany all over again. What was the accepted "truth" yesterday may not be the "truth" today.

In the world of the right wing lemming and puppet, who will mindlessly defend Bush no matter what he does, "truth" is a sliding scale.

 

Is that any different than left wing mental dwarfs like yourself who will attack Bush regardless of the plethora of facts refuting your lies that have been bouncing off of your closed mind?