Bush again defends invasion of Iraq

[number6]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5423244/

> and be sure to vote in poll 2/3 way down ..
Is President Bush right to say that the Iraq War was justified despite the fact that no WMDs have been found?

no 78 % yes 22 %

snip

blah blah blah blah blah blah
yada yada -- spew spew
same old stale talking point .....

snip

[grytpype]

1. Here's what President Wrongway Peachfuzz has to say now...

Saddam "had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists."

OK. So no weapons, just weapons "capability."

Now, where is the damned evidence of "capability?" The ONLY thing Saddam had were some old battlefield chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war. That's it. So what is this "capability" he is talking about?

Powell and Leezie were saying in 2001 that Saddam "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

How could Saddam have "passed that on" to terrorists?

Nothing he says makes a goddamned bit of sense.

[spanone]

8. In his Tennessee speech today HE PRAISED THE CIA!!!!!

This man is in total denial of his situation. He's drowning and has no sense of it whatsoever. Good for him, he deserves it.

[JDPriestly]

2. Pakistan was actually transferring weapons technology

Pakistan has actually transferred weapons technology, but Bush has befriended and funded Pakistan and looked away at its weapons dealing, human rights abuses, harboring of Al Qaeda, Islamic hate machine, etc. Why? If Bush absolutely wanted to play war president, and he wanted to get rid of a source for weapons technology, why didn't he go into Pakistan instead of Iraq?

[number6]

3. they didn't have enough oil

It was a Pakistan nuke scientist who gave out nuke secrets
to terrorists ....

[IkeWarnedUs]

4. He thinks he is safe since Part 2 of the Senate report is silenced

Part 2 of the Senate Intelligence report deals with how the faulty intelligence was used by the people in power.

The Republicans on the Intelligence Committee voted that the second part will be released "before the end of the year" - in other words, after the election.

So Bush thinks he is safe to point the finger at Tenet and get on with his stump speech.

The report is 80% done now. It can and must be released ASAP!

Call Congress toll free - 800-839-5276

Link to my thread with transcripts from Democrat Senators press conferences about this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1970315

[EndElectoral]

5. Pat Leahy's speech on the Senate floor before that 2002 vote - Incredible!

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200210/100902.html

[porphyrian]

6. Bush again a stupid asshole. - n/t

[EndElectoral]

7. Byrd on the Senate Floor on 2002 Iraq War Resolution - Magnificent!

"I continue to have faith in our system of Government. It works. I continue to have faith in the basic values that shape this country, this Nation. Ours was a great country before it became a great nation. Those values do not include striking first at other countries, at other nations. Those values do not include using our position as the strongest and most formidable Nation in the world to bully and intimidate other nations.

There are no preemptive strikes in the language of the Constitution, I do not care what other Senators say. Those values do not include putting other nations on an enemies list so we can justify preemptive military strikes.

Were I not to believe in the inherent ability of the Constitution to withstand the folly of such actions as the Senate is about to take, I would not stop fighting. Yes, he is 85. I will be 85 years old 41 days from now if the good Lord lets me live. But don't you think for a moment I can't stand on this floor all the rest of this night. I like to fight when I am fighting for the Constitution and for this institution. I will fight until I drop, yes, fight until they hack my flesh to the bone. I would fight with every fiber in my body, every ounce of my energy, with every parliamentary tool at my disposal -- and there are parliamentary tools at my disposal; don't you ever think there are not -- but I do believe the Constitution will weather this storm. The Senate will weather the storm as well.

I only hope that when the tempest passes, Senators will reflect upon the ramifications of what they have done and understand the damage that has been inflicted on the Constitution of the United States.

Now, those people out there believe in the Constitution. And I have been very disappointed to have stood on my feet -- an 85-year-old man, standing on his feet, and pleading with his colleagues to stand up for the Constitution -- I have been disappointed that some of them seem not to have listened at all. That is a real disappointment. It isn't Robert C. Byrd who counts; it is the Constitution of the United States. And but for that Constitution, they would not be here, I would not be here, and you, Mr. President, would not be here. It is that Constitution.

And we all take an oath, a solemn oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In the greatest oration that was ever delivered in the history of mankind, the oration "On the Crown," delivered in the year 331 B.C. by Demosthenes in his denunciation of Aeschines, he asked this question: Who deceives the state?

He answered his own question by saying: The man who does not speak what he thinks. Who deceives the state? The man who does not speak what he thinks.

I believe we ought to speak what we think."

[EndElectoral]

9. Kerry's Speech on Senate Floor before Iraq War Resolution!!!

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.
When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
….
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.