Al Qaeda seeking nuclear kit for attacks-UK official

[kaydee457 13]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

[Marc and Olga 0]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

How many of them have stated "I am not concerned about him (Osama Bin Ladin)" or "I don't know where he (Osama Bin Ladin) is"? How many of those Democrats had given up on AQ while pursuing the effort in Iraq?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Edited November 26, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Sadly no-one wants to admit that...

[kaydee457 13]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

Get over it and let's finish the job....

In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Sadly no-one wants to admit that...

Diito my previous post...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

Hence George W. Bush is 100% responsible for the decision, and 100% accountable. Just a shame he doesn't see it that way.

Next time I crash into someone's car, I think I'll follow his example and blame the other guy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

Hence George W. Bush is 100% responsible for the decision, and 100% accountable. Just a shame he doesn't see it that way.

Next time I crash into someone's car, I think I'll follow his example and blame the other guy

Not the other guy, blame the state for affording you a drivers license. Following the Bushies logic, it's not your fault since you wouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place - and hence you would not have caused that accident - had the state not issued you a license.

[kaydee457 13]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

Come on now, these assertions you're making are simply conjecture. They're simply the "spin" you'd like to to put on the situation to support your argument that we went to war soley because Bush wanted to and that he ignored the terms and conditions put forth by congress.

Not true......

Anyway, you need to stop dwelling on the past, as most Democrats wish to do and try to speak to the "here and now" threats we face.

This thread is about the eventual aquisition of nuclear materials by radical islamists. I say eventual because it is just a matter of time before they aquire enough material to do damage, and kill people.

The unfortunate thing is that the successful use of nuclear materials by the enemy to kill innocent people will carry more weight in terms of propganda than if they had killed the same number of people using conventional methods such as explosives or chemicals. However inane and inept the first attempts are they're going to score big in terms of invoking fear in the hearts and minds of the American people.

That is afterall their only weapon. That's what they do; they're terrorists with no other weapon other than fear.

When an attack does occur the media will work the American public up into a frenzy and so this propaganda war goes on.......

Unfortunately, we're too predictable. The Democrats and the last election drove that point home to Radical Islamists.

Edited November 26, 2006 by kaydee457

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

Come on now, these assertions you're making are simply conjecture. They're simply the "spin" you'd like to to put on the situation to support your argument that we went to war soley because Bush wanted to and that he ignored the terms and conditions put forth by congress.

Not true......

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

[kaydee457 13]

You know, let's just go about our business and ignore them.

Sounds like a "plan" to me!

Well, that seems to have been Bush's plan precisely. Which is why he turned the focus off Al-Qaeda and towards Iraq knowing good and well that the latter had nothing to with the former.

Well, is this not ignoring the facts?

Actually, no, it isn't.

What, do I have to do a search on all the Democrats that authorized the incursion into Iraq shortly after 911?

Save me the trouble, poleeze......

Do I have to pull the quotes from the actual debates in the House and Senate where those Representatives and Senators pointed out time and again that this vote is not to be mistaken by the administration as a blank check to invade Iraq before all other avenues are exhausted? Well, Bush decided to march into Iraq quite a bit before that was the case. In fact, he had made that decison long before the vote ever happened.

Monday morning quarterbacking.....

The fact is that we went to war with the consenses of congress, period!

The fact is that there were conditions in that joint resolution (that you seem to have trouble reading) which the President clearly failed to meet. The diplomatic efforts were not nearly exhausted. Not even close.

Besides, the resolution had accomplished, for example, that Iraq granted unfettered access to it's facilities to the UN weapons inspectors. That is - if you read the actual Senate debate - what the resolution was to accomplish: to bring Saddam into compliance. It did that. The only reason that the weapons inspectors couldn't finish their job was that Bush advised the UN on 3/16 to pull them out since we were going in. Had that not happened, the inspectors would have done the job they were there to do and Saddam would have been in compliance with the respective UN resolutions. We would be looking a whole lot better today on many fronts and tens of thousands of innocent civilians would not have perished needlessly.

That was what many, I would think the vast majority of members of Congress envisioned rather than the yahoo ####### that Bush pulled on this nation and the world to start his misguided illegal adventure. That's the fact.

Come on now, these assertions you're making are simply conjecture. They're simply the "spin" you'd like to to put on the situation to support your argument that we went to war soley because Bush wanted to and that he ignored the terms and conditions put forth by congress.

Not true......

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Ok, so where's the articles of impeachment? That's what the Democrats are all about, aren't they? The simple fact is that the Republicans say they met all the milestones on the path to war and the Democrats, retroactively, 4 years later, complain that he did not.....

LIke I said, you need to look forward. What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

[GaryC 7]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not. When the inspectors wanted to go somewhere Saddam would stall them until he could move anything he didn't want them to see. I have a memory of a few times the inspectors were at the front gate of a facility while trucks were leaving the back. I also remember that the inspectors left on their own at one point because they didn't feel they could do their job. Saddam was playing the inspectors for fools. To put so much faith in the inspectors was playing right into Saddams hands.

As far as getting a UN mandate to attack goes that is also a joke. The French and Germans were getting rich from the "oil for food" scam. They didn't want to kill their golden goose and was willing to sleep with the devil to keep it going.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not. When the inspectors wanted to go somewhere Saddam would stall them until he could move anything he didn't want them to see. I have a memory of a few times the inspectors were at the front gate of a facility while trucks were leaving the back. I also remember that the inspectors left on their own at one point because they didn't feel they could do their job.

I seem to "selectively" remember Hans Blix expressing his frustration that he and his colleagues were not being allowed to finish their work, but they could do so if they were given additional time.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441

Text of Resolution 1441

There was no subsequent resolution before:

President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Viewed from the Red Room, President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Cross Hall in the White House Monday evening, March 17, 2003. White House photo by Eric Draper Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

President George W. Bush addresses the nation from the Cross Hall at the White House Monday evening, March 17, 2003. White House photo by Paul Morse Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

This is where the war becomes extremely questionable on a point of international law.

I don't think the issue is "selective memory". That would require one to actually know the truth and then deny it. The problem seems to be that many people simply have forgotten what went on in 2002-2003 and so pick and choose quotes and articles that happen to support their own party political view of historical events.

So....

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

The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Before being permitted to use force, the President determined that further diplomatic efforts alone would not satisfactorily protect the United States or ensure Iraq's compliance with UNSC resolutions.

Feel free to check out the "external links" at the bottom of the page.

Specifically:

Text of the Joint Resolution

[GaryC 7]

The UN is corrupt and would not take action. They were to busy getting rich with the oil for food scam. If we waited until they decided to take action the inspectors would still be there and the europeans would still be getting rich. They were self serving and didn't care about anything but lining their own pockets.

It's no use arguing with you. You think what you want to think and I will think what I want to. Post more useless links if you want but that's my last word in this thread.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What is not true? That Bush chose not to pursue a diplomatic route? That he chose to go it alone without proper mandate? That he violated the obligations this nation has a signatory to a certain document? Which of the points is not true? Or answer me this: Why did the weapons inspectors did not complete their assignment and leave Iraq?

Your having selective memory again. Saddam was impeading the inspectors. Telling them where they could go and where they could not.

Nonsense. The UN inspectors were at work in March of 2003 when Bush called the UN telling them to pull the guys out. The obstacle was not Saddam at that time, it was Bush. Erekose posted the relevant links. Read up and wake up.