The buck stops where? The State of the Union is the MOSt important address to America. Especially this one which was making a case for war.
Well apparently the CIA was nervous about including the reference to the uranium sale in the SOU speech, but the Brits insisted that their intelligence was accurate. And it was only one blurb in a very long speech. It was HARDLY the only "case-maker" for invading Iraq, and certainly not of sufficient relevance to assert intentional misrepresentation or fraud, let alone incompetence.
It certainly was not an issue, as you point out, in Congress granting authorization to use force because it was never included in that debate.
What WAS the issue was that Saddam had violated a 1 1/2 dozen UNSC binding resolutions and the UNSC, as a body, was powerless, and/or unwilling, to enforce those binding resolutions.
Such cease fire violations essentially reintiated a state of hostilities between the members of the Desert Storm coalition and Saddam's regime.
In sum, democrats and republican congressmen BOTH saw sufficient evidence, confirmed by their respective party intelligence committee members, to approve that authorization to use force.
Furthermore, 15 members of the UNSC approved resolution 1441, which stated that Iraq was in material breach of its cease fire covenants and UNSC binding resolutions.
Now apparently, Rascal, you have a problem with Bush initiating a regime change in Iraq. You also seemingly feel the US had no right to re-initiate hostilities against Saddam..
So I have to ask you where is your outrage at US participation in the ouster of Charles Taylor, "president" of Liberia?
I see no binding UN resolution authorizing regime change there.. Yet, Kofi Annan is literally begging the US to intervene, knowing that Bush has demanded that Taylor step down from power.
Furthermore, Section B, Paragraph 7(a) prohibits any nation from permitting transit of any high Liberian governmental official, which means permitting Taylor exile in Nigeria violates this provision.
un.org
Hawk |
