Infidels

[Conan71]

So the silence is quite all right with you, then... Much better, you're right!  Even you can't really be so delusional as to believe your own propaganda....uncoordinated individuals...right....that's all any of these activities have been.  Uncoordinated individuals.  There is no worldwide terrorist agenda.  These are not the droids you are looking for...

Not completely sure, but weren't you one of the supporters of the Libyan Imperialistic Voyeuristic Adventure?  That effort we made to take out the stable, if distasteful existing regime...and replace them with the people from eastern Libya who have been leaving the country for years to head east so they could go kill our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan??

It is a whole like walking up to a mad dog, messing with it in some fashion, and then expressing surprise, if not downright dismay when it bites you.  Makes one wonder who the real "mad" being is....

Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence.  It was right out there for all the world to see.

The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence. 

[Townsend]

Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence.  It was right out there for all the world to see.

The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence. 

The Bush administration relied on the party to try to cover up his ignorance and incompetence.

The Obama administration is attempting to cover up its own ignorance and incompetence.

Maybe they should have a shoe "duck off". Whoever loses has to swallow a pretzel without properly chewing.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Here's the difference: Bush never tried to cover up his ignorance and incompetence.  It was right out there for all the world to see.

The Obama administration keeps coming up with elaborate and embarrassing schemes to try and hide their ignorance and incompetence. 

Yep...that excuses it all.  No further oversight or study of the topic necessary.

[Conan71]

Yep...that excuses it all.  No further oversight or study of the topic necessary.

To the best of my memory, the Bush Administration never attempted to cobble a terrorist attack into something it was not.  Just because you are comfortable being dumbed down by Obama and his minions doesn't mean everyone else is.

[Townsend]

To the best of my memory, the Bush Administration never attempted to cobble a terrorist attack into something it was not. 

9/11 was an attack on the USA by Iraq...

[Conan71]

9/11 was an attack on the USA by Iraq...

You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.

[Townsend]

You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.

It was a hell of an excuse to run the Iraq war through congress, the national and international populous though.

"why are you attacking (name attack-y here)?"  Answer:  "911."  Reaction:  "Oh, 911.  Alright then."

[Gaspar]

So the silence is quite all right with you, then... Much better, you're right!  Even you can't really be so delusional as to believe your own propaganda....uncoordinated individuals...right....that's all any of these activities have been.  Uncoordinated individuals.  There is no worldwide terrorist agenda.  These are not the droids you are looking for...

I love it when you post after a few Marshalls  

Not completely sure, but weren't you one of the supporters of the Libyan Imperialistic Voyeuristic Adventure?  That effort we made to take out the stable, if distasteful existing regime...and replace them with the people from eastern Libya who have been leaving the country for years to head east so they could go kill our kids in Iraq and Afghanistan??

Nope!  We had no business getting involved.  Just like we have no business being involved in Syria. Ultimately all we seem to accomplish is to usher in more Muslim Brotherhood Al Qaeda sponsored leadership that will ultimately lead to increased instability, terrorism, and human rights violation.  Sure, we get to sell lots of guns, bombs, and bullets, but at what cost?  We have a horrible track record when it comes to freeing the sh!t out of people.

I do find it entertaining though that liberals who used to share the somewhat libertarian sentiment for not becoming involved in foreign wars have become, under Obama, willing to defend just about any military, or quasi-clandestine action he wishes to take.  If I had asked most of you 5 years ago if it was legal or ethical for a US president to order the extermination of foreign or US citizens by executive order, you would have contended that it was an outright act of capital murder.  Today, it is MEH?!

It is a whole like walking up to a mad dog, messing with it in some fashion, and then expressing surprise, if not downright dismay when it bites you.  Makes one wonder who the real "mad" being is....

Yup!
However, the "arab spring" concept was like political heroin to Obama, and after pontificating on it in speeches around the world he was hooked.
When that backfired, his only choice became an attempt to sweep everything under the rug and hope no one noticed the bumps.  Worse, he had important things to do like tours, speeches, and fundraisers.  His Libyan policy failure couldn't have come at a worse time.  The table was set and people were paying $30,000 a plate that next night in Vegas.  He had to give the public a pacifier.  "Mr. President, have you seen this YouTube video?"

"Just bumps in the road."

[Hoss]

You won't find a sound bite or article in which Bush or anyone in his administration said we were attacked by Iraq.

I think your "Recovering Republican" title should be changed to "Republican in Remission".

Just sayin'....

[Conan71]

Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:

Security Council
4644th Meeting (AM)

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN 'MATERIAL BREACH' OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS,
OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)

Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days,
Recalls Repeated Warning of 'Serious Consequences' for Continued Violations

Holding Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991).

By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities.  It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations.

Under the new inspection regime established by the resolution, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites and buildings in Iraq, including presidential sites.  They would also have the right to remove or destroy any weapons, or related items, they found.

The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution.  It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material.  Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.

Following this morning's vote, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the Security Council resolution adopted today had strengthened the cause of peace and given new impetus to the search of security in an increasingly dangerous world.  The adoption represented an example of multilateral diplomacy serving the cause of peace and security.  He urged the Iraqi leadership to seize the

opportunity, and thereby begin to end the isolation and suffering of the Iraqi people.  "If Iraq's defiance continues, however, the Security Council must face its responsibilities", he said.

He said, "This is a time of trial -– for Iraq, for the United Nations and for the world.  The goal is to ensure the peaceful disarmament of Iraq in compliance with Council resolutions and a better, more secure future for its people."  How the crisis was resolved would affect greatly the course of peace and security in the coming years in the region, and the world, he said.

Also speaking after the vote, Council members said that their views had been taken into account in the final version of the draft, which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom.  The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of "automaticity" for the use of force had been eliminated.  The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution's requirements.

The United Kingdom's representative said the resolution made crystal clear that Iraq was being given a final opportunity.  The Iraqi regime now faced unequivocal choice:  between complete disarmament and the serious consequences indicated in the resolution.

The representative of the United States noted that, while primary responsibility rested with the Council for the disarmament of Iraq, nothing in the resolution constrained any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by that country, or to enforce United Nations resolutions protecting world peace and security.

The representatives of Mexico, Ireland, Bulgaria, Syria, Norway, Singapore, Colombia, Cameroon, Guinea and Mauritius also spoke.

The meeting, which began at 10:15 a.m., adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

Resolution

The full text of resolution 1441 (2002) reads, as follows:

"The Security Council,

"Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of
14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

"Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

"Recognizing 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,

"Recalling 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,

"Further recalling 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,

"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

"Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

"Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has 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,

"Recalling 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,

"Determined 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,

"Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

"Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

"Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

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

"Commending the Secretary-General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary-General for their efforts in this regard,

"Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

"Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

"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);

"2.Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

"3.Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

"4.Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

"5.Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

[Gaspar]

Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:

Don't bother.  He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.

[Townsend]

Don't bother.  He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.

You really think you should make comments about accuracy?

[Townsend]

Perhaps this will jog some memories which have been tainted by time and hyperbole, as to why we ended up in Iraq:

So you're thinking the UN is the only reason we ended up in Iraq?

Was that Security Council meeting the one and only reason we ever ended up in Iraq? 

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of "I bet we did it because of this."  I'm pretty certain none of us have a clue as to why the US government chose to do much of anything.

I guess we can keep on reasoning why our political party was the best though...

[Conan71]

Don't bother.  He probably still thinks that Bush started the Iraq war, and that Bush was the one that claimed they had WMDs.

Certainly didn't get the idea from his predecessor.

KING: OK. Iraq. You, I imagine, saw Colin Powell yesterday. Did he make a good case? What do you think?

CLINTON: Well, I think he made a good case. He always makes a good case. But the most important thing he said from the point of view from the United Nations is that we had intelligence and photographs which seemed to prove that Iraq was almost taking these chemical stocks, at least, out of the backdoor while the inspectors were going through the front door, that they were moving things.

And if that's true, it means Mr. Blix and his inspectors might never get to do the job that they were appointed to do. So I think that we need to listen to Blix, listen to the Secretary Powell and I still hope the United Nations can act together on this and I think there's still a chance we can.

And, you know, there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm.

KING: You support the president?

CLINTON: I think that he's doing the right thing now.

What I wanted him to do all along was go to the U.N. I think, you know, we've got three big security problems now.

We still haven't, for sure, eradicated bin Laden and also we're hearing the leadership of al Qaeda and they're still very active. And that's the most imminent problem.

And then we've got the North Korean problem we can talk about later, if you want. That's the biggest potential problem.

But Saddam Hussein, for 12 years, has defied the will of the United Nations and we contained him effectively, but I think it's fair to say that after what happened on September the 11th the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution which said, clearly, that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. It can be your removal from office.

So, I -- my position all along has been one Senator Dole and I took here together on your show that we ought to let the U.N. do its work and I still believe that. But I think the fact that Colin Powell demonstrated persuasively that they're moving the weapons, or the weapon stocks in this case, which -- and it would be easier to move the much smaller quantities of anthrax or aphrotoxin (ph) or they may have a little smallpox. But we're pretty sure they've got a botulism (ph) and the chemical agents, VX and ricin.

KING: Does it look inevitable to you? I mean...

CLINTON: It's not inevitable. It still would be much better if this could be done without violence. But the man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapon stocks and...

KING: Did you see information when you were president that led you to think he was doing this?

CLINTON: Sure.

You know, in 1995, keep in mind we had information from two members of his family, two men who had married into his family that defected to Jordan. They gave us thee information and basically the Iraqis, said, OK, we were lying all of the time, here's what we really have. We went in and got that and destroyed it. Everything these guys knew about. Then they foolishly went back to Iraq and they were killed within a month of going back.

In 1998, when we and the British bombed for four days when we kicked the inspectors out, we degraded their capacity further, but there's no question they've had some time to rebuild.

Now based on the declarations they made in '99 and the estimates that were there in '91 at the end of the Gulf War, it's clear that the inspections destroyed more stuff than was destroyed in the Gulf War. but it's pretty clear there are still some things, substantial amounts of chemical and biological stocks unaccounted for.

KING: When you say up to the U.N. -- if -- would you demand another thing other than 1441 from the U.N. if you were sitting in still back in that chair?

CLINTON: Well, as a matter of international law, I don't think it's required. But what we're trying to do here is two things. We're trying to get rid of the chemical and biological storehouse in the hands of a tyrant because he might someday use them or give them away, and more importantly because international law, through the U.N. resolution, says he shouldn't have them.

The second thing we're trying to do is to build a global alliance for peace and freedom and security. So if we can do it with broad support within the U.N., it would be much better. Otherwise, there will always be some who believe that America acted alone. They will question our motives. They will use what we did as an excuse to attack other countries.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/06/lkl.00.html

[Conan71]

So you're thinking the UN is the only reason we ended up in Iraq?

Certainly not.  It was because Baby Bush had to carry on Daddy Bush's war for oil.