I think what you may be missing, and I mentioned this upthread, is that SH had to not only destroy all his WMDs, but he had to account for their destruction, too. He was not able to do that, and one might argue that it was an impossible task, but it was still an open question. -John Mace 02-21-2013 10:34 AM 052a1034.b
Cooperation 02 #590, 602
What John Mace is saying it technically true, however the crux of the matter at the time was what did Iraq have to do, after UN Res 1441, in order to avoid being attacked by the US and UK.
And that one basic item that Iraq had to do was **‘COOPERATE’. **
SH was not required to 'account for all that VX Gas that was destroyed in the early 1990s to avert a war, among reasonable men; he had to show that he was cooperating sufficiently that in a reasonable amount of time those old issues could be resolved.
And Blix stated prior to March 8, 2003 that SH was ‘you can even call it proactive’ cooperating on substance on that issue, as with all the others.
What John Mace has done here is employ the half-truth ploy in making the argument that there remained some semblance of reasonableness on the part of Bush to cut off the diplomatic efforts to disarm Iraq.
I am not saying that Mace agrees that Bush was right. I am saying that Mace is using the same tactic to make some kind of case that Bush acted in a very predictible way in March 2003, that invasion supporters continue to employ to this day; THE HALF TRUTH which is also half a lie.
Bush ignored the fact that UN Resolution 1441, required that Iraq COOPERATE with a new unfettered inspection regime from the UN in order to bring Iraq into compliance with international law and its disarmament obligations.
It was Bush, not Hussein that did not cooperate with the UNSC to disarm Iraq peacefully.
And it is not even close to ever being able to say that Bush did.
Here’s one viewpoint where Congress is guilty but the monkey, who was sworn in to be the President of the United States was not guilty or accountable apparently. And this point of view helps how? ** -Ntfldbw **062p
The AUMF stated that Bush was required to ‘ENFORCE UNSC RESOLUTIONS WITH REGARD TO IRAQ’ and we all know that Bush did not ‘enforce’ UN Resolution 1441, which he agreed to abide by one month after the vote. So Bush was restrained but didn’t pay any attention to the restraint, and many here dismiss the restraint. -Ntfldbw 062p
The difference between being wrong and bring a liar could be the difference between killing another accidentally or pre-meditated murder.
It is possible that they were just wrong to think they knew for certain that Iraq was hiding WMD in March 2003; but it is impossible for them to be mistaken that Iraq was not proactively cooperating in the opinions of the chief weapons inspectors and at least nine of the fifteen members on the UN Security Council.
Bush lied about Iraq’s cooperation on March 17, 2003, and has been lying successfully since to so many who are in that sense fooled by Dubya.
NotfooledbyW, it has been over two days since anyone had the energy to try to discuss this issue with you, yet you have seen fit to submit ten separate posts, some “responding” to posts that are several weeks old.
From the registration agreement:
You have posted to the SDMB 234 times and every single one of those posts has been in this thread, where you have spectacularly failed to persuade a single poster of your views.
This thread has deteriorated into nothing more than your personal anti-Bush blog.
I have closed this thread.
Further, I am instructing you to refrain from posting on the topic of President G.W. Bush’s actions leading to the Iraq war.
You are welcome to continue posting on the SDMB, but you will avoid this topic at the risk of banning for “one trick pony” behavior.
[ /Moderating ]