The facts are in already thanks. And in this case they have that well-known liberal bias.
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.[RIGHT]Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002[/RIGHT]
*Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002[/RIGHT]
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002[/RIGHT]
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003[/RIGHT]
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
[RIGHT]**George W. Bush **
Radio Address
February 8, 2003[/RIGHT]
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
[RIGHT]Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003[/RIGHT]
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003[/RIGHT]
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003[/RIGHT]
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
[RIGHT]Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I have no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
*
[RIGHT]Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003[/RIGHT]
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
[RIGHT]Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003[/RIGHT]
We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find – and there will be plenty. *
[RIGHT]Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003[/RIGHT]
But make no mistake – as I said earlier – we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
[RIGHT]Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003[/RIGHT]
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003[/RIGHT]
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003[/RIGHT]
We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so.
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. *
[RIGHT]Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003[/RIGHT]
We never believed that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003[/RIGHT]
*I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program. *
[RIGHT]George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003[/RIGHT]
U.S. officials never expected that “we were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
[RIGHT]Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003[/RIGHT]
I just don’t know whether it was all destroyed years ago – I mean, there’s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago – whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still hidden.
[RIGHT]Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003[/RIGHT]
Before the war, there’s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
[RIGHT]Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003[/RIGHT]
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re going to find weapons of mass destruction.
[RIGHT]Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003[/RIGHT]
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know the answer.
[RIGHT]Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003[/RIGHT]
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
[RIGHT]Paul Wolfowitz
*Vanity Fair *interview
May 28, 2003[/RIGHT]
*It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there. *
[RIGHT]Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003[/RIGHT]
*Do I think we’re going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there’s a lot of information out there."
*
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003
Hey - where’s my boy? Where’s Blair?
And remember -as Red Fury used to point out - when they went in they went in with no units designated to seize the alleged weapons. none went to the supposed known sites. They knew they were none. WMD’s were just one of the many handfuls of shit they threw at the wall of public opinion by The Office of Special Plans to see what would stick.
“Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who’s now fought in the middle east for six years – my son-in-law’s fought there for four years, my daughter’s been over there, my son has served the nation – my family has been fighting for a long time.” – Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM, October 13, 2007. (Watch Abizaid say this here.)
Blair is halfway along the back row sitting next to Jack Straw.
They didn’t even bother securing one of Iraq’s weapons depots when they invaded. The only thing in the entire country they did secure was the Oil Ministry.
Because they didn’t commit treason, which is well defined in the constitution. We’ve had entire threads devoted to this in the past. Did you miss them?
As for the “crimes against peace”, you’d have to try every Congresscritter, including HR Clinton and John Kerry, who authorized the war. And seeing as how the US is not a party to the World Court, you’d have to make this charge in the US Court system. It would never stand.
Fucking rogue nations, eh?
Robert Kagan link gets a 404.
I probably made it up then.
I’m guessing a lot of those links don’t work now.
I’ve always wondered if part of our reluctance to try US Presidents is because we don’t want to perpetuate the idea that every new administration can / should try to attack and imprison the previous administration. This is why many governments around the world are so unstable… every leader knows he will be killed or imprisoned by his successor, so they go to great lengths to cling to power as long as possible. So we hand out pardons to people like Nixon in order to preserve the peaceful transition of power that is so essential to running an effective democracy.
Now, I’m not saying this is a good thing. I personally believe everyone should be held accountable, Bush and company included.
Hey, Mr. Dastardly-- you forgot this one:
“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret ‘the way the president used the authority.’” Hillary Clinton, April 2004.
That was 1 year after the invasion, btw.
Now, this charge of “crimes against peace”-- is it only to be leveled against Republicans? I asked about LBJ, above, and got no answer. Should he have been so tried? Obviously, he is dead now, and can’t be, but should he have been? How about Bill Clinton? Was Yugoslavia a threat to the US when he spent almost 3 months bombing the bejesus out of part of that country?
Hurrah!
Let’s throw every single one of those criminal motherfuckers in jail. That’s fine with me.
LBJ and Clinton intervened in ongoing civil wars, they didn’t start wars of aggression, which is what Bush, Blair et al were guilty of.
LBJ did concoct a pretext for escalating an ongoing US participation and that was dispicable.
LBJ, Nixon and Kissinger are war criminals in morality if not legal fact though and I’d have been happy to see them all hanged.
And Crimes Against Peace is a legal term so requires no snarky ‘’
The five permanent members of the UN make the rules they are legislator, police, judge and jury - it should be less inconceivable now. The game is rigged more
than almost any other.
Bush bought his mandate at the UN, interpreting R1441 accordingly.
And don’t forget how those who opposed invasion were mocked on this board and in the US - ‘old Europe’, ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’, surrender fries, etc, etc.
War looms as Bush issues final warning By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
Washington Post
WASHINGTON — President Bush vowed yesterday to attack Iraq with the “full force and might” of the U.S. military if Saddam Hussein does not flee within 48 hours, setting the nation on an almost certain course to war.
Bush delivered the ultimatum hours after his administration earlier in the day admitted failure in its months-long effort to win the blessing of the U.N. Security Council to forcibly disarm the Iraqi leader. The United Nations ordered its inspectors and humanitarian personnel out of Iraq, and Bush urged foreign nationals to leave the country immediately.
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][..][/SIZE][/FONT]
Bush presented grim images of the danger of terrorist strikes on U.S. soil that could kill hundreds of thousands.
“We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities,” he said. He spoke darkly of acting “before the day of horror can come.”
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][..][/SIZE][/FONT]
Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of “working the phones,” it quickly became clear that as many as 11 of 15 council members remained opposed and the effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.
The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][.][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Bush defiantly asserted a right to attack Iraq, even without sanction from the Security Council. “The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security,” he said. “The United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will.”[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]War looms as Bush issues final warning | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper
[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman,Times,serif]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
A distinction without a difference. The US was an aggressor.
But maybe I missed the part of the definition of “crimes against peace” where it says "except when a government decides, without UN authorization or the authorization of its own legislature, to bomb the shit out of a country which may or may not be in a state of civil war’.
Can you provide the missing pieces?
Besides, if you want to pull the civil war defense, one can argue that the US had thwarted a civil war with the no-fly zone, and was under no obligation to continue it indefinitely. It chose instead to act on the side of the oppressed and engage in regime change.
Yes, remember how the UN suddenly became an ‘irrelevant institution’?
That was in 1945 right?
Yes, we did it. We just openly started a war, manufacturing a cause, and wading in. It was justified with lies, and quisling politicians like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton gave it the nod to protect their own careers. And we were wrong. And the chances of ever doing anything about it in any organized justice system are absolutely zero. No one will be prosecuted for commiting torture or murder (except maybe a couple of low level grunts).
From Hillary Clinton’s Senate floor speech prior to her vote on the AUMF.