Remedial History 101 For Idiots

With Rick’s article about Tony Blair and his opinions of George W. Bush, we once have again the bleating dolts shouting about how the US invaded Iraq for oil and because “ZOMG! Saddam might give his nukes to his bestest buddy Osama!”

Which, of course, is complete and utter bunk. Most of us lived through those events, and some of us haven’t been engaging in certain memory-degrading forms of recreational pharmacology in the meantime.

Which is a long-winded way of saying “funny, that’s not what I remember happening.”

So, just for the enlightenment of the reality-impaired, below I’m reprinting the justifications for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, as passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

And just for fun, I’m going to list some of the more notable “Aye” votes.

]]>< ![CDATA[

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

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

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

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

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations”;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

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

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

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting Aye: Joe Biden, Max Cleland, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Fritz Hollings, John Kerry, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Charles Schumer, Dick Gephardt, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Lantos, Ed Markey, Jack Murtha, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner.

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 1, 2010.
Filed under History.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • iwogisdead

    Walter Cronanty wrote:

    iwogisdead – Since Tenet has written that he [the CIA] authored the NIE produced to Congress at the request of Sen. Durbin, D. Ill., just before Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, I don’t think W forged it. Unless, of course, Tenet lied about that, too.

    Yeah, that’s a very good point. Tenet’s paper presented an even stronger assessment of WMD.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

    Not that jim x and the libs want to address it. They won’t–keep pushing sticks at them through their bars.

  • SPQR

    You’re playing right into their hands whenever you get into a debate with them about GW.

    GW is history.

    But they still want to talk about him, because they aren’t willing to talk about the sleaziness and the screw-ups of the Obama Administration.

    Jimx was so boorish that I resisted a temptation to ask him to justify the sleaziness of this administration’s despicable decision to involve the UN in their dispute with Arizona, and I couldn’t be bothered with raising other issues with him, too, such as who was in control of Congress when the economy began to nosedive, and who was president when unemployment began to skyrocket, etc., etc..

    Well, you get my drift. When I discuss issues with liberals, it’s on my terms, not on their terms.

  • tyree

    Thanks Jay Tea.

    The left needs lots of history lessons. They still think they get to write all of this stuff, and as Congresswoman Sanchez once said, “It’s true, the Democrats don’t control the media like they used to.”

  • SPQR

    SPQR, remember when you made tiresome threats like an internet tough guy?

    It didn’t have any effect then, and it doesn’t have any now.

    81. Posted by jim x | September 1, 2010 9:06 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast

    It’s simple: Cut them and paste them, Jimmy, or be a man and admit that you lied. That will be a first for you.

    Threatened you? Internet tough guy? That’s bullshit, and you know it.

    You’re one sick, little guy. And a whiny, little crybaby, too.

  • Michael

    Jimmy x…time to go in…your mommy is calling.

  • Michael

    little jimmy x….the poster child for todays typical DimoRat.

  • 914

    YOU LIE! jim x and you are also going to lose the bet in November. Maybe you and Dane can get a room and cry on each others shoulders.

  • WildWillie

    According to jimmy, when Obama said we have to have the stimulus or the employment rate will exceed 8%, he lied. Even if he believed it then the facts support Obama as a liar after the fact. Logic kills liberals. ww

  • ryan a

    The US went into Iraq not because Saddam was a f-ed up dictator (which he had been for decades), but because he stopped toeing the line. Notice that we didn’t invade Iraq in the 1980s. We only went in when he stopped doing things according to plan–and our motives for invading had less to do with the fact that he was a murderous, authoritarian dictator, and more to do with regional and global politics. We let all sorts of authoritarian regimes slide (Somoza, anyone), and we have done that for a long time (for pragmatic and often very political reasons).

    So to characterize the war in Iraq as some kind of purely noble military mission is pretty naive. But go ahead and tell yourselves that it was all about democracy and saving the people of Iraq.

    It was all about strategy, a certain ideological stance about the global role of the US, politics, and economics. But saying that doesn’t really go over very well for politicians, whether on the left or the right. So then we get to hear all of this whitewashed stuff about freedom, liberty, democracy, and such.

    Democracy surely wasn’t a big concern when the US decided to get involved in Nicaragua, was it? (and yes, the Sandinistas were absolutely radicalized–that’s what happens when people live under repressive regimes for decades. Maybe we’ll learn that lesson at some point) And there was also Guatemala. In both cases our foreign policy folks were perfectly happy to side with authoritarian leadership rather than allow any sort of representative government that might be problematic politically or economically for the US. And the pattern continued with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We knew what he was all about in the 1980s, but gave him a break since we hoped he might be able to decimate Iran and be a good authoritarian point man in the ME. Well, then he rolled into Kuwait and we went for Plan B.

  • Myronhalo

    Jim x,

    You say,
    Re: # 75 – the evidence I have that he lied is,

    1. he made statements at the time

    2. those statements don’t fit what we now know the intelligence community understood **at that time**

    That is not true. The intelligence communities were nearly all saying the same thing. France and Russia seemed to be the only two that differed, and that only in degree. Bush din´t lie since he got his information from all of the worldwide intelligence services. You need to accuse the secret intelligence people of either lying or making mistakes, but not accuse the government leaders when they acted on that information. You just want to blame Bush cause you don´t like him.
    Saddam´s propaganda campaign to bluff the Iranians worked so well that it was bought all over the world. He lived and died to regret doing such a good job.
    Also, remember that hard evidence confirmed that Iraq had quite a few weapons of mass distruction in 1993 and later, and there was no evidence that those had ever been destroyed.

    By the way, Jimmy, what´s your day job?

  • Steve Crickmore

    The nub of this debate as Karl Rove, Bush’s chief political advisor states,

    Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”

    And by W.M.D. he means a nuclear weapon, since probably half the countries in the world have stockpiles of nerve gas, mustard gas etc. Iraq must one of the few significant countries who no longer had a stockpile, courtesy of UN resolutions, the weapon inspectors.

    Yes, Iraq did use poisonous gas on the Kurds in 1988 killing three thousand, gas purchased from the US, in series agreements initiated by Donald Rumsfeld when he was a civilian who went to Baghdad in 1982 to shake Saddam`s hand and assure Saddam of US material support, including the shipments of poisonous gas, authorized by the US Department of Commerce. Rumsfeld twenty years later said he was shocked Iraq could have poisonous gas.

    So the heart of the issue is whether Iraq had a nuclear bomb, an impossible feat considering the time frame needed and huge nuclear engineering operation and plant need, and with hundreds of UN inspectors wandering around a country, and with US reconaissance satellite photos in a country, which barely has a military airplane.

    Yet, still Bush got away with his unbelievable assertion,

    At a December 31, 2002, press conference, Bush asserted, “We don’t know whether or not [Saddam] has a nuclear weapon.” But there was no intelligence at the time suggesting that the Iraqi dictator might already possess nuclear weapons. The faulty national intelligence estimate produced in October 2002 had errantly declared that Iraq was “reconstituting” its nuclear weapons program but it had also concluded Iraq had no nuclear weapons and would not be able to produce one for years. Bush had no basis for suggesting Saddam could already be nuclear-armed. Yet he did so.

    It is to bad that Bush didn`t consult with Scott Ritter who had been US`s main weapons inspector in Iraq. Hey, that would have upset Bush/ Cheney/ Rumsfeld and their manufactured justification for the invasion.

  • Streve Crickmore

    The hyper-links for the above: Rove and the
    Bush assertion

  • warchild

    What truly amazes me is how conservatives are truly hateful to facts they dislike. I mean to take the document and actually show what it says and they become enraged and start calling you names. find links to the press conferecnes where the admin was making their case for war, a case they fully echoed back and claimed was true themselves and they pretend it happened a completely different way. wow. I mean,just wow. And these people think they should govern something?

  • Sky Captain

    warchild, I think you meant to post -”What truly amazes me is how LIBERALS are truly hateful to facts they dislike. … I mean,just wow. And these people think they should govern something? “

    I mention this because as I look back through this thread, it is the liberals who have the panties in a wad, not the conservatives.