The resolution to which you are referring was passed during the last, not the current, Congress. And it passed on the basis of bogus information, information which has since been refuted. That's a fact.
Regarding my question, Hawk, I should have better qualified it. Sorry 'bout that. Here 'tis:
How many hours has the current Congress spent debating the preemptive force policy and the potential for war on Iraq?
>>> And btw, I'm just not going to continue being your Political Science professor here.. It's getting late and I'm getting tired.<<<
Because my viewpoint differs from yours, you are not my professor. Perhaps, in the consideration of all of this, the reverse could be true, but I'll make no such claim. Neither should you.
>>>We have suspicions that Saddam would be willing to use terrorist groups as "attack dogs" to carry out attacks against the US (and may have played a role in 9/11, according to Czech intelligence).<<<
Our CIA analysts doln't buy into the Czech intelligence. There is no proof to the Atta and Iraqi official meeting. Mere speculation.
>>>We KNOW that Saddam has supported and harbored terrorist such as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and others who have targeted and killed Americans.<<<
And Ameirca has long harbored many people from former dictatorships that were friendly to the US, dictatorships responsible for doing some of the same things alleged against Saddam.
>>>We have a 15-0 UN resolution declaring Saddam in material breach.<<<
And this same resolution implemented a resumption of the inspection process which is yet complete.
>>>We have given Saddam several months to do what should only require no more than a week.. Lay everything out and have it accounted for, and if required, destroyed.<<<
Record keeping in the aftermath of 10 years of war is probably not the best, and there's probably a very good reason why the US military likes paperwork in triplicate.
I doubt the US or any other nation could fully account for 100 percent of its weaponry stock. In fact, we are missing some stuff, are we not? Anthrax, for example? In a speech at Harvard University, former chief weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus stated on 23 May 2000 that "in all areas we have eliminated Iraq?s [WMD] capabilities fundamentally."
The US response to the work of the recent weapons inspectors has been woeful. Everything's a smoking gun. The UN Security Council large majority have belief in this inspection process and wish to continue with it, for good reason. Bush wants a war of convenience, and for ulterior motivation, and his administration thus has a prejudiced perspective.
>>>We have Hans Blix continuing to tell us that the Iraqis remain intransigent on basic requirements of cooperation and compliance...<<<
No reason to drop a multiple bombs on a population that, as you agree, is half populated with children.
>>>And we have 250,000 American soldiers grinding down the crowns of their teeth because of all the dust they're having to eat (along with their T-Rations) waiting for the CinC to give the word.<<<
Because the commander in chief made a bad military decision, innocent Iraqi citizens should suffer a fate of death, and then once Iraqi families, friends and neighbors have been absolutely decimated, they're supposed to become the happy Iraqis who'll welcome us?
Indeed, Bush did well to use the threat of force in order to get the inspections going again. Unfortunately, he started dreaming in the process thinking, no matter what, he could go in and get the credit for taking Saddam down.
>>>>Do you think talk is going to solve this problem PT?? Because we've had 12 years of nothing but talk and it ain't done sh*t...<<<
Not true. Again, I refer you to the statement of Rolf Ekeus. Bush used to lie that "Saddam kicked out the inspectors!" Remember that? Well, Clinton pulled 'em when he resumed bombing. They've been gone since '98. So it hasn't been 12 years since there was ongoing work from '91 to '98--it's absurd to discount the years where progress was made as non-years.
Question: Why are you willing to dismiss half of Saddam's son's statement to US and British intelligence? Bush, yourself, et. al., will use half of that statement for propaganda purposes, yet each of you will eliminate as if it didn't exist the half of that statement that noted Saddam buried most of his WDM in 1991 at a site the inspectors are now testing. What's the matter, you want the war before those specific inspections are completed? If so, why? For the sake of the Iraqi children? |
