Why did go into Iraq again?

Oh yea..

Published on January 20, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

One thing that is both amusing and frustrating about the left in the United States is the claim that we went into Iraq mainly because of WMD. That this was the only real justification for going into Iraq. Left-wing comedians like to make a lot of noise on this. John Stewart on the Daily Show, like many left wingers uses the "I'll make a snarky one liner to make the other side look stupid even though it's a strawman argument".

Here is the resolution that congress voted on:

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
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: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled

If more left-wingers got their information from..you know..the origninal sources instead of ideological websites or left-wing media analysis, there would be less confusion on this.

Comments (Page 2)

Moderateman

on Jan 20, 2005

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Thursday, January 20, 2005Reply #6 By: Sinister Rouge - 1/20/2005 2:42:56 AMWhat?Bush used the WMD scare tactic to justify the war. I know you can point to the resolution and bold the parts that cement your view, but "Peace and Democracy" was only introduced to the American people after it was obvious Iraq had no WMDsYou guys *still* don't seem to get it. ALL the major intel agencies thought Saddam had WMDs. That includes the Brits, the Germans and the Israeli to name a few. So don't give me the spit that Bush knew there wasn't any.

lets add france, jordan, egypt and russia to that list too, and you ALL notice that impressive list of rightwing wing members that said saddam had wmds but somehow {imagine that} the entire leftwing that said the same was somehow ommited.

Just another example of voting dementia the left seems to have.

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2005

If you put the words "might have" between the words "Saddam" and "had", I'd agree with that statement.

You produce the quotes of the world leaders prior to the invasion with those words, and I might agree with you.

Solitair

on Jan 20, 2005

Dr Guy,
you're practcing selective amnesia here. The French president went on US television and stated that he saw no information to convince him that Saddam currently had WMD.

Paul.

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2005

Dr Guy,
you're practcing selective amnesia here. The French president went on US television and stated that he saw no information to convince him that Saddam currently had WMD.

Paul.

No, I asked for a quote from a major leader and I might beleive you. I said Might, because while you may consider France a major leader, I dont. I see them as just a corrupt accomplice to Saddam what would have done anything to keep the gravy train flowing.

And I never heard him say that, but then I dont listen to crooks.

Zoomba

on Jan 20, 2005

The WMD issue was the button the administration could push to get a very strong emotional response from the average citizen. It was used because if they sat there and tried to list off their other reasons for going in, the public would fall asleep in their armchairs or change the channel. They could sit there and say "to free a nation" and most Americans think "Why do I care? They're on the other side of the world" However, say "We believe they have WMDs!" and people sit up and take notice.

WMDs and the weapons inspectors were a tool the administration used to to try and emotionally sway the public. The terrorist ties were another attempt, but we never really were able to draw a strong connection (well, strong enough to get people motivated). Yes, we had many other reasons... and yes, due to intel and all of our sources, we truely believed there were WMDs in Iraq. The fact that they aren't there isn't an issue of the President lieing, it's an issue of everyone involved dropping the ball and feeding bad information up the line. It was a mistake, a large mistake... but not intentional or malicious.

The one point that is clear and absolute is that Iraq did pose a threat to our national security through its threat to nations in the Middle East. Oil is a strategic resource for the United States, and anything that threatens that supply is by extension a threat to our nation.

The WMD argument was meant to gather public support... it turned out to be a mistake. We're in Iraq now, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it anymore. The only thing we can do now is fully commit to putting the country back together and handing it off to its citizens. We made the mess, now we have to clean it up. No more finger pointing, moaning, groaning or bitching. Now we have to make the best of a less than ideal situation, and the sooner we stop trying to hinder the process, the sooner we'll get our troops home and pull out of Iraq.

whoman69

on Jan 20, 2005

the other main reason for going to war was terrorism. the 9/11 commission concluded that Iraq's ties to terrorism were tenuous at best. There are far more countries that have a more direct role in sponsoring international terror.

If all these other countries thought that Iraq had WMDs, why did they not join us. Perhaps they saw the arguments they had them are not the slam dunk all the neocons believe they are. the only reason still valid given to go to war is they had a dictactorial government that repressed their people. So do a few dozen other countries around the world. no mention of when we invade them yet.

Other reasons mentioned include Iraq as a threat to the region. They haven't had the ability to invade any other country since the first Gulf War knocked out the majority of their military strength. Ignoring UN sanctions, we couldn't convince anyone there either. Most thought that other methods were available to bring them in compliance. Simply put, there are no remaining valid reasons to go to war that have not been debunked.

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2005

Name them and provide reliable Intel to back up your claim. I guess Suicide bombers (Hello???? $25k per bomb?) is just good practical joking.

Myrrander

on Jan 20, 2005

good try, drag, it's good to deny the reasoning that george bush provided to go into iraq

the funny thing is that there is more terrorism associated with iraq now than before the war

but you probably don't see that

we on the left only make a big deal about WMDs because we had condi rice et al telling us about the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" -- forgive us if our memories are long

if there was a wmd straw man set up for the invasion, George bush and Donald Rumsfeld created it

forgive us if we remember

conservatives are so good at rose colored vision, how do you do it?

Solitair

on Jan 20, 2005

Dr Guy,
asking others to provide proof of terrorism links in other countries because you choose to ignore the 9/11 commission report is rediculous. Just look at Libya and Lockerbie. You're purposely sidestepping the issue that the US went to war primarily on WMD and secondly on terrorist links. Just search through old JU articles to look at the abuse that these reasons were given at the time of the war. I and many others argued that these reasons were wrong from the start. That they have since been officially debunked by the US government and that now other reasons are been heralded as the real reason from the start is revisionism.
The fact of the matter is that the US (and the UK) DID use WMD and terrorism links as the reasons for war. No amount of hiding behind requrest for links, quotes, evidence, or even devine proof changes this. Other reasons existed but they were never mentioned nearly as much as WMD and terrorist links. Just because you and others (me included) had better reasons to supprot the war does not change the fact that the reasons stressed again and again by the government were WMD and terrorism.

Paul.

Dr Guy

on Jan 20, 2005

The fact of the matter is that the US (and the UK) DID use WMD and terrorism links as the reasons for war. No amount of hiding behind requrest for links, quotes, evidence, or even devine proof changes this. Other reasons existed but they were never mentioned nearly as much as WMD and terrorist links. Just because you and others (me included) had better reasons to supprot the war does not change the fact that the reasons stressed again and again by the government were WMD and terrorism.

I dont remember recalling where I said that WMD and Terrorist links were NOT used as justification. I do remember saying that the weight of WMDS is a Liberal 20/20 hindsight issue that they did not decry before the fact, and indeed, in their own words, agreed they existed.

I do recall saying that no major world leaders stated unequivocally that there were NO WMDs. I also recall someone throwing the name of Chirac into that debate with no attribution, which I then stated he is not a major leader due to his crookedness, but THAT was just my opnion.

I do recall stating that Iraq had major ties to Terrorist, with a cited example (and there are easily others) when someone opined that was a lie as well.

IN summary, I dont see how your post even remotely addresses the issues I raised, but instead is trying to attribute to me something I clearly did not state or avow.

Island Dog

on Jan 20, 2005

Oh.

Will you guys stop with the stupid "lol liberal media" shit already? Especially attacking Jon Stewart, which is like attacking Iraq during a War on Terr- oops.

I see you only listed quotes made by Repbulicans. I guess you forgot these.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

whoman69

on Jan 20, 2005

Name them and provide reliable Intel to back up your claim. I guess Suicide bombers (Hello???? $25k per bomb?) is just good practical joking.

the 9/11 commission. the suicide bombers are there after the war. there are now probably ties to Al Quaida, there were, according to the commission, only tenuous ties at best at the time we declared war.

whoman69

on Jan 20, 2005

you can talk all you want about Democrats agreeing that there were WMDs, but who gave them that information. the same administration that may have cooked the information to bring about the result the administration wanted.

Myrrander

on Jan 20, 2005

c'mon now, you have to understand whoman -- republicans are always right and democrats are always wrong

even when they say the same things

Myrrander

on Jan 20, 2005

cigar in Monica?

boy you republicans are still so jealous of that

lol

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!