Take a step back in time with me. When we were rushing into war with Iraq for no good reason on shoddy evidence and poor justification, the Bush administration not only lacked international support for the intervention, but the domestic zeal for invading and occupying Iraq was significantly below the 50% threshold (it never got solidly above 50% until our soldiers were engaged, and has steadily decreased ever since). But the administration was determined to have its war, and they didn’t want to go the UN or even Congress to do it. So an insane argument was floated.
The Republicans began saying that the authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein in 1991, in order to liberate Kuwait, was all the authorization they needed in order invade Iraq. Unlike a lot of their other crazy and dumb ideas, it never went anywhere, and soon the Democrats in the congress (led by Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle) gave Bush what he wanted on the domestic front. They got as far as resolution 1441 in the U.N. but when faced with the diplomatic might that is France (yes, I also think it’s pathetic that we allowed France to out maneuver us diplomatically) we never got the promised whip count (“No matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote.”) that would authorize military action in the U.N.
I remember this little bit of farce because I now see a similarly crazy-sounding argument making the rounds. Alberto Gonzalez:
We do not have to decide whether, when we are at war and there is a vital need for the terrorist surveillance program, FISA unconstitutionally encroaches or places an unconstitutional constraint upon the President s Article II powers. We can avoid that tough question because Congress gave the President the Force Resolution, and that statute removes any possible tension between what Congress said in 1978 in FISA and the President s constitutional authority today.
So, much like how a 12 year old authorization to use force against Iraq for the specific purpose of liberating Kuwait somehow went through the transmogrifier and became a green light for the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, so too has the authorization to use force against the Al Qaeda network been exposed to some of Master Splinter’s mutating goo and become a blank check for the President to spy on American citizens in America without getting an easily obtainable warrant in a probable violation of the law.
It’s like having a man in a straight jacket tell you he’s the President, and you feel crazy, because he really is.
While we’re at it, where is my apology from President Bush? No WMDs, he vouched for them, where is America’s apology? Wingnuts, I don’t want the excuses, Bush vouched for it, Bush assured us they were there, Bush was wrong, I deserve an apology.
It took Richard Clarke to apologize for the government’s failure to protect America for 9-11. Where was Bush then? He should have apologized. When it comes to stature,we know Bush is about 2 inches on the “Big Man” scale, but still, I want my apology for Bush’s Blunder in Baghdad.
For a little Deja Vu click on the far right of the link.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/nixon77b.mov
Insert irrelevant comment about Bill Clinton.
If ultimately the use of force proves necessary to compel Iraq s acceptance
of its Resolution 687 obligations a credible legal argument is also available that the Security Council s
initial authorization in the Gulf War to restore peace and security in the Gulf area has been reinvigorated
by Iraq s failure to comply with its cease-fire obligations originally set by the Council. While a
subsequent Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force would supply the legal gold standard
for any use of force, it is reasonable to regard Security Council conditions imposed for a cease-fire in
the Gulf War as requirements for the maintenance of that cease-fire; and thus material non-compliance
with these conditions would rescind the cease-fire itself. This legal basis would be challenged by many,
including some of our allies, but it provides a stronger legal basis than was available to President
Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And it serves world order and the rule of law by undergirding the
seriousness of compliance with solemn Security Council cease-fire conditions.
http://www.virginia.edu/cnsl/pdf/preemp~1.pdf
In the penultimate paragraph, I think the second time you said “Kuwait”, you meant “Iraq.” No?
When did Hussein violate the cease fire?
For kool aid drinkers any lie will do, and the ends justify the means.
I’m ashamed of my nation right now. We have a war criminal, torturer, pretender to a non-existant throne in the WH and all the wingnuts do is circle the wagons.
Scary.
“When did Hussein violate the cease fire?”
When he refused to allow the weapons inspectors to do the job they were mandated to do, which was to confirm that the known stockpiles of WMD’s were either already destroyed, or to witness their destruction. They were never able to complete that mission, hence Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement.
Yes Dr. Pedro. What a convenient legal argument: We abide by the decision of the UN right up until it doesn’t support our decision to go to war then we get to do what ever we want. Give me a break.
The Security Council set the terms of the cease fire and only the Security Council could legally define the response if it was broken. That isn’t simple the Gold Standard, it’s the only standard.
I also want to point out something which often falls by the wayside in all of these spitting. Just because GW has a “legal argument” for why the invasion/spying/etc was legal, it does NOT follow that the action was IN FACT legal.
For example, all of this Article 2 powers stuff. As the executive, you can make an Article 2 argument whenever you feel like, if the country is arguably at war. That’s what’s going on right now. Article 2 is vague. The very same argument could be used for internment camps et al. Doesn’t mean it’s right.
Main point: A legal argument is not a legal truth. Helpful to remember in the future.
but when faced with the diplomatic might that is France (yes, I also think it s pathetic that we allowed France to out maneuver us diplomatically)
What in the world? Did you read “The Retard’s Guide To Recent History” or something?
Outmaneuver us? They weren’t going to allow anything to happen. Why? They lose Saddam, they lose a major meal ticket. Billions of dollars. There was nothing ‘diplomatic’ about their actions. It was based on greed and nothing more.
There was a feller around here a week or two ago lecturing people about something called “context.” He looked a lot like you.
Um, UN Security Council? Ever hear of it?
When OW refers to being “outmaneuvered diplomatically,” it’s pretty clear he’s talking about actions taken within the Security Council. Wish as much as you will, but shifting the topic of conversation to what you imagine to be France’s motives doesn’t erase Mr. Bush’s bluster and bungling. He promised to go to the Security Council for a vote and France backed him down.
And “Retard’s Guide”? Really, Jay. Thinking people don’t use language like that.
Maybe, maybe not. But Chirac was right about Saddam’s weapons programs, and W wasn’t.
nawoods: “When he refused to allow the weapons inspectors to do the job they were mandated to do, which was to confirm that the known stockpiles of WMD s were either already destroyed, or to witness their destruction. They were never able to complete that mission, hence Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement.”
Hans Blix claims that Iraq was in complete compliance well before the invasion, what is your basis (names and dates*) for disputing his assessment?
*Spare me the ad hominem attacks by ‘Joe Rightwingnut’, radio talkshow host, or the vaporings of Scott Maclellan, if you please.
nawoods Says:
January 26th, 2006 at 11:55 am
When did Hussein violate the cease fire?
When he refused to allow the weapons inspectors to do the job they were mandated to do, which was to confirm that the known stockpiles of WMD s were either already destroyed, or to witness their destruction. They were never able to complete that mission, hence Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement.
———————————————————-
Geepers, nawoods, do you have any idea how easily duped you have been by the right wing talking points? Your contention that Bush had the right to start a war with Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t allow weapons inspectors do their job is a complete fabrication. Had you troubled yourself to look into the facts instead of just parroting BushCo’s propaganda, you would have been surprised to learn that U.N. inspectors where on the ground, doing their job, when they were forced to leave Iraq after the U.N. was warned by the Bush administration that war was imminent.
Let me help you clear the fog of BushCo propaganda with some stone cold facts:
On September 16, 2002, almost 6 months before the start of the war, Saddam agreed to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq to confirm that he did not possess WMDs: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/
On November 27, 2002, U.N. weapons inspectors landed in Iraq and resumed searching for WMDs. They spent the next four months searching the length of Iraq for WMDs and WMD programs. They were granted unfettered access to every sight they wished to search. They found nothing.
Despite the fact that the U.N. inspectors found no signs of WMD after four months of searching, Bush issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, giving Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war. The administration informed the U.N. that they could not guarantee the safety of the U.N. inspectors once fighting begins, so the U.N. was left with no alternative but to remove the inspectors from Iraq for their own safety. The U.N. evacuated the inspectors from Iraq the next day: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml
The day after the inspectors left, the United States launched it’s war with Iraq.
So, it wasn’t Saddam who prevented the U.N. inspectors from finishing their job… it was George W. Bush. Perhaps if Bush would have waited a bit longer, we could have learned what we now know, that Saddam had no WMDs and posed no imminent threat to the United States. Perhaps we could have spared the loss of over 2,000 of our brave service people, the senseless slaughter of 30,000 Iraqis, and hundreds of billions of our tax dollars… not to mention losing the respect of the world and destabalizing the middle east.
Unfortunately, Bush was determined on regime change in Iraq and was going to invade whether their were WMDs or not. They used the specter of WMDs to scare the crap out of the American people, manipulating us into supporting a war that we would have otherwise likely refused to fight. When you mouth the talking points that Saddam wouldn’t allow the inspectors in, you are being used as a tool for propaganda… how does it feel to be a tool?
Hello…
Hello Hello Hello Hello Hello Hello HELLO HELLO HELLO
H H H
e e e
l l l
l l l
o o o
http://www.hellomagazine.com/
Hello Hello Hello
Gawd Damm! That has gotta be the best echo ever, it really went to town on my itty bitty original! ; )
Seriously borntoburn, an excellent response to nawoods‘ incredibly ignorant (literally) comment.
UN Resolution 687
Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:
(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/sres0687.htm
Iraq didn’t have to let in weapons inspectors, they had to declare where the weapons went.
They didn’t…..
Oliver – UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (the 12th resolution asking Saddam to comply with international requests that he dismantle his ambitions for WMDs in accordance with the 1991 cease fire) actually passed… So, yes. they had the “whip count” for 1441.
And 1441 used the term “serious consequences” was left open… and the French & Russians (who were subsequently demonstrated to be receiving kickbacks from Saddam & Kofi’’s Oil-For-Food scam) thought “serious consequences” meant another weekend retreat to Switzerland to chat how “grave” the situation had become. And, you’re right… if it comes down to actually picking up a rifle, the French will always call for a delay, unless it’s one of their former colonies filled with disenfranchised and exploited poor – THEN they come with guns a blazing.
But, hey… re-write history however you like.
It looks like drpedro has been drinking the same kool-aid as nawood. Once again, an ignorant poster unwittingly acting as a tool for propaganda. I’m sure drpedro wouldn’t want to be a clueless tool, so let’s help him with a healthy portion of cold hard facts:
U.N. Resolution 687 was approved by the U.N. Security Council on April 3, 1991:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement
This resolution set the conditions of the cease fire that brought the first Gulf War to an end. As drpedro correctly points out, one of the conditions for the cease fire required that:
“(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;”
Furthermore, the resolution goes on to state:
“33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990)”
In other words, all Iraq had to do to win a cease fire was notify the Secretary-General of the U.N. that they accept the provisions of the resolution. Iraq agreed and the war was over.
What drpedro fails to understand is that there was no enforcement measure included in the resolution. No penalties or other repercussions are mentioned in the resolution should Iraq fail to comply. If drpedro can find any language in the resolution that gives the United States the right to unilaterally enforce the resolution, I’d be very interested.
Like most things in life, there’s much more to the story than meets the eye in Resolution 687. Let’s look at what actually happened after the 1991 cease fire. Iraq allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to inspect and destroy WMDs in the years following the cease fire. The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (aka the U.N. weapons inspectors) issued a report to the security council on January 27, 2003 which included the following statement:
“The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims with little evidence that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA.”
Although most of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed by 1996, there was some remaining questions regarding how many WMDs remained undeclared and intact before the cease fire of 1991; what, if anything was illegally produced or procured after U.N. inspectors left in 1998; and how Iraq could be prevented from producing or procuring WMDs in the future. These unanswered questions, along with Iraq’s refusal to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq were seized upon by the Bush administration as proof of non-compliance. The United States, chomping at the bit to remove Saddam, demanded that the U.N. take action to enforce the provisions of Resolution 687 or else the United States would take it upon itself to unilaterally enforce the resolution. (Again, what authority Bush had to unilaterally enforce a U.N. resolution remains a mystery.)
The U.N. Security Council responded to Bush’s demands with Resolution 1441, adopted on November 8, 2002:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm
Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 687 and gave Iraq one final chance to comply or face serious consequences. (Again, no penalties or other repercussions are mentioned at this point, only promises that Iraq will face serious consequences to be determined later by the Security Council). Iraq agreed to the conditions and U.N. weapons inspectors returned to Iraq on November 27, 2002. This time, Iraq cooperated with the inspectors, as mentioned in the January 27, 2003 report of the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC:
“Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.”
Although there were some sticky issues involving the use of aircraft; some demonstrations by Iraqi’s during inspections; and availability of corroborating documentation on some weapons, Iraq was complying with Resolution 687 & 1441 at the time of the Executive Chairman’s report. Obviously, this did not bode well for a Bush administration hell bent on removing Saddam from power based on a breach of U.N. resolutions and a supposed threat of WMDs. Something had to be done to convince the U.N. that military action had to be taken.
On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council with his now infamous speech outlining the threat posed by Saddam and his supposed arsenal of WMDs. Powell made some rather alarming claims about Saddam possessing massive stockpiles of WMDs, plus an active nuclear weapons program. (As of today, no WMDs have been found, and the U.S. has admitted that it appears that all of Iraq’s WMD programs, including the nuclear weapons program, ceased operations in 1991.)
When pressed for corroborating evidence of these WMDs, the U.S. refused, citing the need to protect intelligence sources. Baring any independently verifiable evidence of a massive WMD stockpile other than the assertions of the United States and Britain, coupled with the fact that Iraq was cooperating with weapons inspectors, the Security Council decided to allow the inspections to continue. During the weeks that followed, it was clear that the U.N. was not going to take any further action while Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors, so the Bush administration decided to abandon working for a diplomatic solution through the U.N. and forged ahead with their war plans… leading to Bush’s ultimatum of March 17, 2003. The U.N. reluctantly evacuated their weapons inspectors the next day, ending any hope of averting the war Bush so desperately wanted.
Of course, you didn’t need me to explain all of this to you, drpedro. Had you bothered to actually educate yourself about the run-up to the war instead of mindlessly parroting BushCo’s propaganda, you would know this already. Instead, like nawood, you have been fooled into being propagandist. Doesn’t it suck to find out you’ve been a tool?
Hey stwendeler, you should be very careful when you accuse someone of re-writing history, especially since it’s obvious that you don’t have a very good grasp of it. You do your argument a huge disfavor by hauling out that tired old saw about France and Russia going soft on Saddam because of the U.N. Food-For-Oil scandal.
Once again, we have an ignorant poster demonstrating what a tool they are, parroting right wing propaganda. I’m sure stwendeler doesn’t want to come across as an ignorant boob, so let’s help him out with a nice slice of reality pie.
Although one can argue that France and Russia’s reluctance in going to war with Iraq may have been partially influenced by their participation in the scandal, the fact remains that the primary facilitator of the scandal was the United States. Both the American and British governments were fully aware of the scandal, but opted to close their eyes to the smuggling because their allies, Turkey and Jordan, benefited from the majority of the smuggled oil.
The United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations assigned to investigate the scandal concluded:
“The United States (government) was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions. On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.”
The Senate committee also found that individuals and companies in the United Stated accounted for 52% of all oil-voucher kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein. The largest of these participants, Houston based Bayoil and it’s CEO, Bay Chalmers, have been indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice for their actions.
These nagging little facts are always omitted from the right wing talking points about the scandal… all to the detriment of the little tools that mindlessly repeat the propaganda. Maybe it’s just me, but using this scandal to smear the Russians and the French when it was the United States who was the primary facilitator is about as asinine as it gets. Of course, had stwendeler actually bothered to research the Oil-For-Food scandal himself instead of parroting right wing propaganda, he wouldn’t have to be wiping the egg off his face now.
Oh, and one last thing… bashing the French only makes you look like more of an idiot. If you want to hold it against France for not going along with an illegal war based on fake intelligence about non-existent weapons of mass destruction, go right ahead. I’m sure they rest easy in the knowledge that it’s not French soldiers being killed in the streets of Iraq, nor do they have to worry about the billions of their euros being wasted on a needless war, nor do they have to worry about generations of radicalized muslims seeking revenge on their nation. Yup, I’m sure France is just fine with that. Besides, don’t be such a freakin’ ingrate. If it weren’t for France, we would all still be subjects of the British crown. (Please don’t tell me I need to explain France’s role in the American Revolution… I just don’t have the energy to give you yet another history lesson.)
Borntoburn
“You do your argument a huge disfavor by hauling out that tired old saw about France and Russia going soft on Saddam because of the U.N. Food-For-Oil scandal.”
“Although one can argue that France and Russia s reluctance in going to war with Iraq may have been partially influenced by their participation in the scandal”
Internal consistency is always helpful in argueing a point, you should try it some time.
Of course the US government was aware of the oil-food scandal, that is why they kept going to the UN sec council demanding something else be done. If you can’t see the difference between GOVERNMENTAL complicity in the scandal, that would prevent the government from supporting a military action that will find evidence of that complicity, and private organzations profiting from within a country…..
Well,it becomes clear why you would be confused about the real reasons behind France/Russia/Germanies actions…
What was that guy that Jon Lovitz played in SNL, the yea, that’s the ticket guy? That’s what Bush and his sycophants sound like.
“We went to war because……we don’t want the next warning to be a mushroom cloud, yea, that’s the ticket, and, and oil for food, yea, that’s it, France and Germany were corrupt, yea, that’s the ticket! and… the inspectors found WMD! In fact, the inspectors hid the WMD’s under the dress of an underage girl, yea, that’s it! And we went to the UN, but…. yea, Kofi Annan is really Saddam Hussein in black face.. yea, that’s the ticket!”
The idea that the death of 2,250 American soldiers is justified by the “oil for food” scandal is just too stupid to debate.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
” Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 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, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) 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 Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677″;
“Factcheck” (I really wish you would…) Just substitute “UN Security Council” for “jon lovitz” and you will have it about right.
It cracks me up that you use the information we recovered AFTER invading the country as a reason we SHOULD NOT have invaded the country.
Lefties don’t understand that hindsight is not useful tool in leadership….
Again, too stupid to debate. When are we going to invade Israel? After all, they have violated more UN resolutions than anyone else. Since, you know, we’re in the business of unilaterally enforcing UN resolutions.
Basically, the thing that I don’t understand is how our government can maintain a stance that it is at war with terrorism, or is it Al Qaeda? Can we declare war on what is essentially a criminal organzation and not, by any means, a country? It seems to me that if we are attempting to catch or kill criminals, then we shouldn’t use, as a legal basis, an argument based on the idea that we are at war.
That’s not to say that we aren’t at war in Iraq, but the fact that the Bush administration continues to attempt to confuse the war on Iraq with the “War on Terror” (a concept that is only slightly more ridiculous than attempting to wage war on a specific terrror group) only serves to point out the biggest weakness of their own argument, which is that you can’t use a “war-time” exception for something that really isn’t a war. Duh.
“War on terror” cannot be won, and therefore is always a danger that can be spun into votes and influence. It’s like the “War on Drugs”.
Terrorism will always exist, our job is to contain it by fighting the people who participate in terror (read: not Saddam Hussein). John Kerry was excoriated for saying that the best we can do is reduce terror to a nuisance, but he is right. Terror has been with us for years, and always will be, as long as there are radicals like Eric Rudolph, Tim McVeigh, and Osama bin-forgotten.
drpedro, I suppose I should be flattered to have received a lecture from you regarding consistency. After all, you seem to be quite the expert at consistently failing to see the points raised by anyone who challenges your undying devotion to right wing propaganda.
I realize that having someone rattle your world view can be rather discomforting, so in the interest easing you through these troublesome moments, please allow me to lubricate your mind with some reality salve.
As is the norm with many tools of the right wing propaganda machine, you selectively quote my response to stwendeler, leaving out the pertinent text that drives the point home. Allow me to rectify that:
“Maybe it s just me, but using this scandal to smear the Russians and the French when it was the United States who was the primary facilitator is about as asinine as it gets.”
Perhaps you didn’t quite understand what I meant by primary facilitator. Let’s take a short course on the oil for food program (OFF) and the role of the United States in the ensuing scandal, shall we?
1. Every OFF contract for every humanitarian purchase had to be unanimously approved by the 15 members of the Security Council, including Russia, France, and the U.S., but only the United States and Britain, by their own insistence, were allowed to see the full text of these contracts, many of which were rife with corruption.
2. The United States and Britain exercised their unique control over contracts to facilitate exemptions to the embargo for favored friends and facilitated the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department made a deal with the Russia to turn a blind eye to illegal activities of a Russian oil company, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars being split between the company and Iraq.
3. The U.S. State Department, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the United States Navy’s Maritime Interdiction Force were repeatedly warned by U.N. officials as early as 2001 of rampant corruption within the OFF program and blatant violations of the U.N. oil embargo, yet amazingly, none of these agencies took any action. The U.S. Navy went so far as to allow ships it knew were transporting illegal oil to simply sail past unchallenged.
4. Thanks to the United States active participation in the scandal, 52% of of the illegal kickbacks paid to Saddam Hussein came from individuals and companies within the United States… and 80% of the illegally imported oil ended up in the United States… all with the knowledge of the United States government.
Which brings us back to my original point. When you take into account the fact that the United States not only participated in the scandal, but also actively facilitated many of the illegal activities, not the least of which is allowing illegal oil to freely flow across borders and leave Iraqi ports, isn’t it a bit asinine to bludgeon Russia and France for their meager participation?
I’m glad we cleared that up… but I’m not done with you yet, my dear drpedro. I’m afraid I would be negligent if I didn’t point out a wee problem with another statement you made:
“Of course the US government was aware of the oil-food scandal, that is why they kept going to the UN sec council demanding something else be done.”
That statement is a perfect example of what this writer calls, “Pulling facts out of your ass.” Once again, school is in session…
From the OFF programs inception to 1996 until it’s demise in 2003, both the Clinton and Bush administrations (along with the British) manipulated OFF and the oil embargo for their own national interests. Despite the usual right wing carping about wasteful and corrupt U.N. programs, at no time did the United States seek fundamental changes in OFF. In fact both administrations actively fought attempts by other members of the Security Council to change OFF. Had you bothered to do some homework instead mindlessly parroting right wing propaganda, you would have saved yourself the humiliation of being exposed as a know-nothing boob.
Your final attempt to use the OFF program to smear Russia and France is laughable on it’s face. You say:
“If you can t see the difference between GOVERNMENTAL complicity in the scandal, that would prevent the government from supporting a military action that will find evidence of that complicity, and private organizations profiting from within a country& ..
Well,it becomes clear why you would be confused about the real reasons behind France/Russia/Germanies actions& ”
So it is your contention that France, Russia and Germany decided not to support the invasion of Iraq because they didn’t want to lose those big bucks flowing to them thanks to their involvement in the OFF scandal and other trade with Iraq? Let me guess… you didn’t do your homework again, did you? Once again, had you done your homework instead of brainlessly parroting right wing propaganda, you wouldn’t be looking so foolish right now. Allow me to explain…
By your reasoning, in the run-up to the war, France, German, and Russia (FGR) were faced with the following dilemma:
Support the U.S. push to invade Iraq and lose busloads of Iraqi cash or refuse to support the war and keep the Iraqi cash cow flowing.
It’s a tempting meme to follow and has been pushed ad nauseam by right wing tools everywhere. Unfortunately, like most right wing propaganda, this idea falls flat when we bring sticky little things called facts and their equally troubling friend, context, into the equation. Let’s look at the REAL reason FGR did not support the war… namely that these nations simply did not believe that Iraq was the threat the U.S. painted it to be. Why was this so?
Remember, the United States and Britain made breathless claims about massive stockpiles of WMDs and cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They claimed that the threat was so grave, the danger so imminent, that the world had no recourse but to invade immediately. They claimed that the evidence was substantial and beyond reproach. Unfortunately for the pro war crowd, the Europeans weren’t beholden only to the assurances of BushCo. This may come as a surprise to you, but FGR have extensive intelligence services all their own operating in Iraq… and the fact is that their services directly contradicted the threat as painted by BushCo. (That’s right, contrary to the right wing propaganda machine, the whole world did NOT agree that Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMDs and posed a imminent threat.) For example:
1. BushCo claimed that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMDs. When pressed by FGR to see the evidence, BushCo refused, stating the need to protect intelligence sources. German and Russian intelligence indicated that Iraq may have had SOME WMDs, but nowhere near the massive stockpiles that BushCo claimed, hence little or no threat. France intelligence had a spy serving in Saddam Hussein’s cabinet, who reported that there weren’t ANY WMDs. This information was passed on to our CIA, who chose to ignore it. So, who turned out to be correct, BushCo or FGR?
2. BushCo claimed that Iraq had weapon’s systems capable of delivering their nonexistent WMDs to the United States within 45 minutes. Again, BushCo refused to share their intelligence. FGR intelligence found no such systems. After the invasion, the United States was forced to admit that these systems turned out to be nothing more than glorified radio controlled airplanes with a range of only a few miles. Who got it right?
3. BushCo claimed that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program (EEK! MUSHROOM CLOUDS!) As before, BushCo would not allow FGR to examine their intelligence. FGR had direct intelligence before the war that the nuclear program was dismantled after 1991… which the United States now admits to be true. Who got it right?
4. BushCo claimed that Iraq possessed mobile biological warfare labs. Most other intelligence services that examined the photographs concluded that the mobile labs were likely service vehicles for weather balloons. When Coalition forces eventually captured some of these vehicles, they were embarrassed to admit that the vehicles turned out to be service vehicles for artillery balloons. Who got it right?
5. BushCo made dire warnings of cooperation between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda and intimated that they collaborated in the 9/11 attacks. FGR intelligence services found this assertion beyond laughable. Beside the fact that there was no evidence to support this idea, it was no secret that that the Bathist regime of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were mortal enemies. The idea that they were working together was pure fantasy on it’s face. The Bush administration now admits that they have no evidence to support operational cooperation between Al Qaeda and Saddam (Although it appears that Dick Cheney didn’t get the memo.) Who called it correctly?
6. U.N. weapons inspectors were on the ground from November 27th , 2002 until two days before the war started on March 19th, 2003. During that time they searched the length of Iraq with unfettered access to Iraqi facilities. They found no sign of WMDs or WMD programs. BushCo insisted that the weapons were there, but neither the U.N. nor the FGR intelligence services found WMDs. Three years after the start of the war, there are still no sign of WMDs or WMD programs. Who had it right?
7. In the months prior to 9/11, Colin Powell stated, “The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn’t have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained… There’s no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons (WMDs) still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.”
Likewise, Condoleeza Rice made this pre-9/11 statement, “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
FGR intelligence services agreed with these assessments from Powell & Rice, both before and after 9/11, yet after 9/11, Rice and Powell completely changed their tunes. Somehow, as if by magic, Saddam went from being a weak and contained washout who didn’t even control his own country to the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler. Imagine that!
8. Before the war, the CIA confided with German intelligence that a major source of our information regarding Iraq’s phantom nuclear program came from an exiled Iraqi national code named Curveball. (We now know that Curveball was about the ONLY source of information regarding the nuclear program) Germany knew Curveball and informed the CIA that he was a psychotic alcoholic who was a proven fabricator, telling whomever was paying him whatever he thought they wanted to hear. They warned the CIA that nothing he said could be trusted. The CIA chose to ignore the German warnings. Now, if you were in charge of Germany, and you knew that the U.S. was relying on testimony from a shady character like Curveball to make a case for war, how eager would you be to jump on that wagon?
I could go on and on with BushCo’s fabrications. The point is, based on what FGR knew, it was pretty clear that BushCo was full of crap. It was clear that BushCo was hell bent on invading and had no problem manipulating intelligence to make a bogus case for war. Furthermore, let us not forget that FGR are all democracies who had millions of their citizens marching in the streets in strong opposition to the war. I know the desire of the people doesn’t mean crap here, but the democracies of Europe actually tend to head the will of their people… a novel idea, I know.
So, to simply state that the reason FGR did not support the war was because the would lose some money is such a gross over simplification as to make anyone who makes such a statement look like a complete fool. Besides, if we look at the money they stood to lose, it’s peanuts compared to what they would have spent fighting a needless war.
Let’s take France for example. France’s yearly exports to Iraq generally ran about 2/10ths of 1% of France’s yearly exports world wide (around $443 billion a year), which works out to be around $1.3 billion dollars in exports a year. Over the course of three years of war, France has lost out on close to $4 billion dollars in exports. Now compare that to the cost paid by the U.S. taxpayers so far for the war, $ 236.7 billion, with no end in sight. Now, I know that math problems can be challenging, but I’m sure you can figure who has the better deal here.
Besides, most of the countries that refused to support the war were struck by the wrath of Emperor George the W, who proclaimed that nations who wouldn’t play his game would be excluded from reconstruction contracts or dealing with the provisional authority. Once again, no money. If keeping the Iraqi dollars flowing to FGR was the motivation for their resisting the war, it seems that their evil scheming backfired, eh?
I realize that all these facts wrapped in context can be frightening and confusing, so let’s sum it up with a simple game that drives the point home…
Let’s pretend that you are a leader of a European democracy. The United States comes to you to ask support for an illegal invasion of Iraq, a crumbling nation that has done nothing to you or any other nation in over 12 years. The U.S. now claims, despite earlier assertions to the contrary, that Iraq now has massive stockpiles of WMDs and active WMD programs… yet declines to let you examine their evidence in any meaningful way. The U.S. goes on to claim that the threat is so grave that the world has no choice but to act immediately. Meanwhile, your very own intelligence services are telling you that none of the U.S. claims seem to add up. They also inform you that the U.S. is relying on information from known liars. Furthermore, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq aren’t having any luck finding these massive stockpiles or programs despite unfettered access. Your citizens take to the street by the millions demanding that you stay out of the war. On the economic side, you stand to lose over $ 1 billion a year in exports, plus share the burden of paying for a war that will cost you tens if not hundreds of billions more.
What would you choose to do?
Yup, I thought so.
Borntoburn
Thanks for the long lesson…..In between the act of actually pulling facts from your rectum (notice my links to the factual backround for my opinion versus your 3 page, completely unreferenced screed…), you make interesting points, they just aren’t supported by fact. My contention is that people running the government actively fought the invasion because they, as individuals, were making money…simple graft. Now they were supported by populations that were not eager to fight either for a variety of reasons. In short, personal riches, rather than the complex calculus of the trade values of various actions were the driving forces here.
Interestingly in your thesis, you suggest that FGR would lose more money in preventing the war and then quote the huge amount of money the US paid to fight it. Yet your lefty collegues keep screaming the war was about “oil”…..So of course the reverse argument is true, we spent way more money than we could ever recoup on oillllll……..!
Anyway, here are some referenced facts to support my argument.
…..France and Russia tried to delay the lifting of sanctions against Iraq and continue the Oil for Food program. That’s because France and Russia profited from it: The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996 and 2003. …….
…..Other recipients include: former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua (12 million barrels); Patrick Maugein, CEO of the oil company Soco International and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac (25 million); former French Ambassador to the United Nations Jean-Bernard Merimee (11 million);……
Reference
Finally, why do you people keep thinking that we are using “talking points” when we are quoting the source documents? The knuckleheads here keep screaming to “stay on point…!” while quoting, verbatim, from various lefty websites. When I bring in the ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT to prove my point, you scream that I am just quoting talking points….
Lefty “logic” never ceases to amaze me….