Yes, Iraq Definitely Had WMD, Vast Majority Of Polled Republicans Insist

To this day, the U.S. government has not come up with a credible reason why our military was ordered to invade Iraq in March 2003. One thing is certain, the invasion had nothing to do with so-called “weapons of mass destruction,” also known as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. President Bush was informed unequivocally, well in advance of the invasion, that there were no such weapons in Iraq. The claim that the Iraqis posed an immediate threat to U.S. national security has been called “one of the greatest lies in modern American political history.”Oops no WMDs

How potent a lie was it? A recent foreign policy poll (PDF) by Dartmouth government professor Benjamin Valentino and conducted by YouGov from April 26 to May 2, found that fully 63 percent of Republican respondents still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in 2003. Even 27 percent of independents and 15 percent of Democrats still buy the story about the nonexistent WMDs, eight years after it was disproved.

President Bill Clinton had the best explanation of how Americans get fooled. “When people are insecure, they’d rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who’s weak and right.”

Also: 55.6% of Republicans agree with the statement, “I have always believed President Obama was born in another country,” while 14.7% say they don’t know. Another 8% of Republicans say, “I used to think President Obama was born in the United States, but now I think he was born in another country.” That adds up to 78.3 percent.

The entire poll is worth reading. It asks a lot of interesting questions, such as whether we want to be the world’s number one military power (Yes), and whether we’re willing to pay more taxes to keep the United States military the strongest in the world (Not so much).

h/t Dan Froomkin, HuffPo.

UPDATE: According to the Gallup Poll, 18% of Republicans believe President Obama is a Muslim, 24% say Christian and 47% don’t know.

  1. #1 by brewski on June 22, 2012 - 2:47 pm

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on June 22, 2012 - 3:07 pm

    We’ve been over this. The U.S. intelligence community established before the invasion that Iraq had no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and no strategic missiles. The U.N. weapons inspectors agreed with this assessment. There was no threat to America.

    After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group confirmed beyond any possible doubt that there was no threat.

    Now I suppose brewski is going to tell us President Obama was born in Kenya.

  3. #3 by brewski on June 22, 2012 - 3:23 pm

    What did I say which was false?

  4. #5 by Richard Warnick on June 22, 2012 - 3:24 pm

    brewski–

    You wanted me to define “had.” I did, not for the first time, but there is always a small hope that facts count for something.

    Bob S.–

    Small caches of leftover mustard agent? That’s why we invaded Iraq?

    You guys are living confirmation of that poll, in case anyone thinks it’s hard to believe.

  5. #6 by brewski on June 22, 2012 - 3:30 pm

    So which of these facts are false:
    1. Iraq had WMD
    2. Iraq used WMD
    3. Clinton said “Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

  6. #7 by Richard Warnick on June 22, 2012 - 3:38 pm

    brewski–

    Here’s what’s false.

    The Bush administration lied the nation into an illegal invasion of Iraq by falsely claiming there was a threat to our national security. That’s the history.

  7. #8 by cav on June 22, 2012 - 4:11 pm

    Define “had”

    As in past tense, or we’ve been ‘had’?

  8. #9 by brewski on June 22, 2012 - 4:47 pm

    So, in other words, everything I ever said was factually true. Thank you.

  9. #11 by knight4444 on June 22, 2012 - 6:03 pm

    republicans are exactly like the people who use to believed the earth was flat, who believed women could be witches and that the Jews were the cause for pre WW2 germany economic recession, hell 30% of republicans believe Obama is actually SATAN enough said

  10. #12 by brewski on June 22, 2012 - 6:42 pm

    Based on what?

  11. #13 by Larry Bergan on June 23, 2012 - 7:52 am

    Sometimes, you just have to throw down your weapons and hope.

    This is one of those times

    We never voted for these bastards anyway.

    No offense to bastards.

  12. #14 by cav on June 23, 2012 - 8:58 am

    Just the statement: ‘Anything I ever said is factually true’, is more than likely factually false. Statistical common sense. Just keying it up on the net doesn’t make it so.

  13. #15 by Richard Warnick on June 23, 2012 - 10:54 am

    It can’t be said too often, so I’ll keep saying it. There are two ways for America to go to war.

    (1) In response to an attack on the United States or one of our allies we’re committed to defend.

    (2) When authorized by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

    Note that even if the nonexistent Iraqi weapons were real, and plans existed to use them in an attack on the USA, that’s not a reason to invade Iraq absent a U.N. Security Council resolution. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegal – a violation of the U.N. Charter, which like all treaties under our Constitution is “the supreme law of the land.” Those involved in making the decision to attack Iraq belong in prison.

  14. #16 by Larry Bergan on June 23, 2012 - 11:04 am

    Some people are so formal ;)

  15. #17 by brewski on June 23, 2012 - 2:19 pm

    “It can’t be said too often, so I’ll keep saying it. There are two ways for America to go to war.

    (1) In response to an attack on the United States or one of our allies we’re committed to defend.

    (2) When authorized by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.”

    This is patently false. Show me where in the US Constitution this says this.

    You will need to point this out to JFK (Cuba), Johnson (Vietnam), Clinton (Somalia, Kosovo), Obama (Libya), etc. Or should we arrest all of them as war criminals?

  16. #18 by brewski on June 23, 2012 - 2:19 pm

    I am in moderation apparently for using the word “constitution”.

  17. #19 by Richard Warnick on June 23, 2012 - 3:52 pm

    brewski–

    Comment approved.

    I thought I explained that the United Nations Charter is a treaty. As such, it is “the supreme law of the land” according to Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the Supremacy Clause).

    Historical notes (I enjoy historical research, however anyone can look this stuff up – you don’t need me):

    Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961) – In 1960 President Eisenhower authorized a “covert” CIA plan to invoke “plausible deniability,” but that was ridiculous. Clear violation of U.N. Charter, not authorized by Congress. In September 1962, Congress passed a resolution calling for the direct elimination of the Castro regime.

    Vietnam (1964) – Collective self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Authorized by Congress in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (it was later determined that Congress was lied to).

    Somalia (1992) – Joint operation authorized by U.N. Security Council Resolution 751. President George H.W. Bush sent forces to Somalia without congressional authorization.

    Kosovo (1999) – Joint operation under collective self-defense doctrine according to NATO Charter and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, plus humanitarian considerations. No U.N. Security Council resolution. No congressional authorization.

    Libya (2011) – NATO/international operation not authorized by Congress, although Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution authorizing limited U.S. participation. Operation was justified by Obama administration under doctrine of “responsibility to protect” and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. “It needs to be pointed out that what he is doing is outside the Constitution,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich said at the time.

    Interesting footnote:

    In April of 1984 the government of Nicaragua, led by Daniel Ortega Saavedra, filed a case against the United States of America, under President Ronald Reagan, claiming that the actions of the United States were in violation of international law.

    In its decision, two years later, the World Court agreed with Nicaragua that the United States had violated international law and, in all likelihood, committed crimes against humanity.

    The United States did not dispute the facts of the case. Instead, it just disregarded the court’s decision. So, Nicaragua brought the matter to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States vetoed a resolution (11 to 1, 3 abstentions) calling on all states to observe international law. Nicaragua then turned to the General Assembly, which passed a resolution 94 to 3 calling for compliance with the World Court ruling. The United States did not comply, nor did it ever apologize or pay reparations.

    This behavior by the United States has raised serious questions about the validity of any judgement by the World Court involving the United States — since the US has already proven it won’t abide any decision that does not go in its favor. Many who study international law view the actions of the United States in dealing with the International Court of Justice in the matter of terrorism against Nicaragua as the gravest setback to international law in our lifetime.

    We can conclude that:

    (1) Presidents on a bipartisan basis have overstepped their powers as commander-in-chief, intervening overseas without a declaration of war.

    (2) Congress often seems unwilling to either stand in the way of the Imperial Presidency or to authorize an unpopular war, so they try to have it both ways (e.g. the 2002 Iraq AUMF, which passed the buck to the U.N. Security Council). In the cases of Clinton and Obama Congress was controlled by Republicans determined to say no to almost any action the administration wanted to pursue, regardless of the merits or lack thereof.

    (3) The United States government, on a bipartisan basis, regards itself as effectively exempt from international law. However, this does not invalidate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

  18. #20 by knight4444 on June 23, 2012 - 4:07 pm

    Maybe I’m missing something here, when was the usa at war with Cuba?? or Libyia or Samolia? huh? Johnson was prolonging the Vietnam war trying to save face didn’t work

  19. #21 by cav on June 23, 2012 - 5:06 pm

    Snarky comment suppressed.

  20. #22 by knight4444 on June 23, 2012 - 7:57 pm

    cav, you need to be suppressed! lol grow up! do you EVER say ANYTHING worth a damn??

  21. #23 by cav on June 23, 2012 - 8:28 pm

    fer Shizzle LoL

    I come for the fights, and stay for the intellectual stimulation. Lol.

  22. #24 by cav on June 23, 2012 - 9:03 pm

    K.004,

    You’re not the first person who’s told me to ‘grow up’. I figure – if it hasn’t happened since well into the last Millenium, it’s probably not going to.

    Hurrah for eternal youthfulness.

    In any event, and I suppose in response to your comment #20 and mine at #21,..what I suppressed was my surprise at your having missed such significant events in our country’s history. And even though each of those events really failed to rise to the full, glorious status of ‘War’, they each were just further indications that our approach to the challenges of other countries seeking autonomy is all too often more of ‘The Big Stick’ variety – even while we fancy ourselves as exceptionally bent on ‘Peace’ and being diplomatic.

    Now, why I feel that any response to your commentary is even required, let alone ‘worth a damn’ is probably born of my need to be involved in the banter. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Of course, I have no illusions that this offering will achieve your standard of aptness, but it’s out there now just the same.

  23. #25 by knight4444 on June 23, 2012 - 10:33 pm

    lol I simply responded to the statement as presented the usa hasn’t had a WAR with those countries. I know full well the usa has had military actions with those other countries. Now cav, are you getting enough fiber in your meals? the nursing home needs to review your diet plan, rest well sir….

  24. #26 by brewski on June 23, 2012 - 11:50 pm

    Richard,
    Since you seem to want to be legalistic about this, I am sure you are also aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris).

    In it, it reads:

    Article 21
    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    Therefore, only duly elected representatives of the peoples are legitimate representatives to the UN and to the Security Council, therefore, China, Pakistan, etc are not legitimate members of the UN and are not valid members of the Security Council. Therefore, per your strict reading of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, anything the UN and the Security Council does is illegitimate by their own rules.

    So relying on the UN for legitimacy for anything is a bit like relying on Charlie Rangel for moral approval.

    Try again.

  25. #27 by knight4444 on June 24, 2012 - 8:50 am

    Or better yet Ted haggart, or Newt gringrich or Bob packwood or Mark foley or David vitter or Mark sanford or Larry craig or George rekkers should I go on? any republican that has the balls to want to point fingers about MORALITY probably should think twice and sit silently. Charlie rangel? compared to those FREAKS! Charlie’s and angel

  26. #28 by knight4444 on June 24, 2012 - 9:27 am

    Why anybody claiming to be in their RIGHT mind would think constantly debating republican values LOL is a logical course is HILARIOUS!! republicans are so easy to dismantle, their blatant hypothesise, their phoney religious values. I knew when Reagan said ”THE GOVERNMENT ISN”T THE SOLUTION! IT”S THE PROBLEM” I knew he was a fool!! You’re the captain of the ship and your telling the passages the boat isn’t worth a damn!! only in america could you say something that unbelievably STUPID and still have a job!!! LOL

  27. #29 by brewski on June 24, 2012 - 10:23 am

    None of the people you listed hold any elected office today. Rangel is still a congressman and still enjoys the public support of his leader. So much for your comparison.

  28. #30 by cav on June 24, 2012 - 11:33 am

    And what does Charlie Rangle’s morality have to do with anything?

    For that matter, what does the Constitution Of the United States of America (since at least the 2000 election) have to do with anything? Before it’s untimely demise, such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, and The Geneva Conventions were to be absorbed into our legal structures, rather than themselves being viewed as just more ass-wipe.

    Oh well.

  29. #31 by cav on June 24, 2012 - 11:41 am

    The ONLY lesson The Powers That Be learned from Vietnam was to keep an iron-fisted control over military coverage by the media. That became easier as media consolidation accelerated. Suddenly you had a major military contractor like GE overseeing a media empire and not wanting to piss off the Pentagon (see Halliburton et al). It all became ridiculously easy at that point.

  30. #32 by knight4444 on June 24, 2012 - 12:13 pm

    You don’t except ANY valid criticism of the gop which overall ruins your credibility. Those republicans FREAKS I named are absolutely valid because their still parading their sorry pusses on the media circuit! Hell Gringrich was running for president a couple of months ago!! The republican party is guilty by association! By your L O G I C bringing up the past is irrelevant, THEN WHY DO republicans always use the ”WE WERE THE ANTI SLAVE PARTY?” YEAH FROM 1865!! you can’t have it Both way!

  31. #33 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2012 - 4:18 pm

    brewski–

    You asked about war crimes. I provided a pretty good, factual answer in terms of U.S. law. Two of the operations you listed were ordered by Republican commanders in chief, which kind of invalidates the partisan point you were trying to make. The Imperial Presidency belongs to both major political parties.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not a treaty. What is your point?

  32. #34 by cav on June 24, 2012 - 5:44 pm

    brewski’s point?.. buried somewhere beneath that hat!

    I couldn’t hep mahseff.

    Whatever it was however, I’m glad he did…a most interesting document. I’d never read it.

  33. #35 by brewski on June 24, 2012 - 6:14 pm

    I wasn’t making a partisan point. I was making a factual point. JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Obama are Republicans? Who knew?

    My point is that the UN Security Council has no authority to approve or not approve any military action by anyone, so your treaty makes no sense.

    Nice try. I’m sure you believe what you are trying to say.

  34. #36 by Larry Bergan on June 24, 2012 - 8:21 pm

    The best document of the medias failure in the run-up to the Iraq fiasco is Bill Moyer’s “Buying The War”, which features interviews with some of the reporters who got caught up in the mess.

    Recently, Moyers told his viewers to take another look at the documentary, which can still be seen here.

  35. #37 by cav on June 24, 2012 - 8:32 pm

    O.T. but like everything, related.

    This is probably the last night we will have before we lose our health care system for another 20 years.

    Remember that when you see a republican tomorrow.

  36. #38 by brewski on June 24, 2012 - 9:58 pm

    System? What system?

  37. #39 by Richard Warnick on June 24, 2012 - 10:23 pm

    brewski–

    If you didn’t know that the Bay of Pigs invasion was authorized by President Eisenhower, and the Somalia operation by President George H.W. Bush, well you do now!

    If you don’t think the U.N. Charter has the force of law in the USA, well that’s your unique opinion. I ought to have mentioned that a U.N. Security Council resolution or a NATO operation is not sufficient authority for a President to commit Americans to combat. Unless the action is purely defensive in nature, the Congress must authorize it. Conversely, a congressional AUMF by itself does not make an invasion legal (cf. Iraq).

  38. #40 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 7:36 am

    Tell me you are joking. What happened to the Richard Warnick rule of “Under His Watch”? Planning something, contemplating something, training for something, is not comparable as ordering something. There is only one Commander in Chief at a time. Live with it.

    The UN has no authority over the US, or anyone else. It is a club for dictators and thieves.

  39. #41 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 8:25 am

    “At a time when popular revolutions are sweeping the globe, the United States should be strengthening, not weakening, basic rules of law and principles of justice enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But instead of making the world safer, America’s violation of international human rights abets our enemies and alienates our friends.

    Jimmy Carter

  40. #42 by knight4444 on June 25, 2012 - 8:35 am

    My GOD! isn’t the bigger issue the usa once again PAID countries to go along with that PROPED up phoney invasion of Iraq??? Thats why France voted NO! because they knew it was BULLSH*T! Hell, after further reflection Colin powell knew it was BULLSH*T! guys will you open your eyes!!! the usa actually invaded another country under false pretences!! this country seems to have a history of waging WAR to get it’s way!! ASK THE AMERICAN INDIANS!

  41. #43 by knight4444 on June 25, 2012 - 8:54 am

    I remember watching bill o’reilly rant and rage over France not wanting to join this phoney war campaign the usa was orchestrating, calling the french all kinds of juvenile idiotic names that fool actually wanted a ban on french fries! LOL This is your typical republican alright! Only a fool would believe there were WMDS in Iraq!! after 9 yrs of searching and NOTHING! ZERO! republicans just can’t accept being WRONG!! I actually spoke with a republican at a fast food shop and he said ”THE WMDS WERE MOVED TO IRAN DAYS BEFORE THE UN CAME IN” I broke out LAUGHING in his face!! obviously he is a FOXBOT! anybody with common knowledge knows IRAN and Iraq don’t like each other very well!! they did have a war around 1980 or so?

  42. #44 by knight4444 on June 25, 2012 - 9:02 am

    I finally agree with brewski OMG! the UN is a club of thieves and dictators, but I wonder, what country established the UN? could it beeeeeeeee the usa??? just saying…..

  43. #45 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 9:03 am

    Dick Cheney and his buddies had a master plan! What else are the millions and millions of the rest of us to do?

  44. #46 by knight4444 on June 25, 2012 - 9:26 am

    The usa pathetic run at being the big cheese is at an END!! this ridiculous empire established after ww2 is gone! the usa is only a power in TWO areas MAKING WEAPONS & THE BANKING INDUSTRY, we don’t create ANYTHING! and thanks to our politicians we’ve outsoursed jobs at an unsustainable pace We should do what the british empire did after ww2 just abdicate. lol Boys and girls we’ve been sold out!! ENJOY

  45. #47 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 9:30 am

    brewski–

    Sorry, but your opinion of the United Nations has no bearing on the Iraq invasion, which violated the U.N. Charter. You are going to have to admit it was illegal as all hell.

  46. #48 by knight4444 on June 25, 2012 - 9:34 am

    don’t hold your breathe! republicans NEVER apologize.

  47. #49 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 10:18 am

    In the immortal word of Richard M. Cheney: So?

  48. #50 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 10:30 am

    Not my opinion. Read their own rules. Facts are facts.

  49. #51 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 10:58 am

    The Supremacy Clause is a fact that brewski so far refuses to acknowledge.

  50. #52 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 11:24 am

    You use this word “illegal” as though there is some UN police which goes around enforcing the UN Charter. I don’t remember the UN arresting LBJ for Vietnam, nor do I remember the UN arresting Ho Chi Mihn for invading South Vietnam.

    You seem to have an affinity for dictators and thieves as well as being a Kurdistan Holocaust denier.

  51. #53 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 11:52 am

    I use the word illegal because when you violate “the supreme law of the land,” that’s what it is.

    The Crime Of Waging Aggressive War

    On the issue of aggressive war, the [Nuremberg] Tribunal declared: “The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” (October 1, 1946)

  52. #54 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 12:00 pm

    All of the “sanctuary” cities violate the law of the land, and I don’t see see you or any other lefties screaming that it is “illegal”.

  53. #55 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 12:04 pm

    brewski–

    I expected you to try and change the subject, because you can’t admit I’m right.

    There is no requirement for cities to use municipal funds or resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

  54. #56 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 12:07 pm

    OK, back to your point. So. let me understand this. If any country wants to go to war, first they need to get permission from the dictators and thieves in the illegitimate UN, right? This is what the supreme law of the land says.

  55. #57 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 12:22 pm

    I’m going to assume there’s a hard head in there somewhere.

  56. #58 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 12:27 pm

    brewski–

    I can’t believe you find this hard to understand. The U.S. government is bound by the U.N. Charter because of our Constitution. The right of self-defense, including collective self-defense, is never denied.

    However, any nation that starts a war without prior authorization from the U.N. Security Council is wrong and in violation of the Nuremberg Principles. Ideally, nobody ought to be going around starting wars!

  57. #59 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 12:38 pm

    Richard,
    The UN did authorize use of force in 1990. Iraq then violated the conditional cease fire. They violated those conditions. Cease fire over.

    Which part of “conditional” don’t you understand?

  58. #60 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 12:42 pm

    Um, no.

    Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

    Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be “consequences” if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

    Also, if 1441 allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq then why did Colin Powell go to the U.N. seeking a new resolution?

  59. #61 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 1:41 pm

    Annan?

    You mean this Annan?
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june05/volcker_3-29.html

    Of course Annan wanted to keep the Oil-for-Palaces program going. It was making him rich.

  60. #62 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 2:31 pm

    brewski–

    But Kofi Annan was right, the invasion of Iraq was a breach of the U.N. Charter. Just admit it. That’s how history records it anyway.

  61. #63 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 2:57 pm

    So Annan is a crook and a liar but he is right since he agrees with you.

    We have to go ask the thieves and dictators for permission to enforce a broken conditional cease fire.

    Apparently, Bill “Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law” didn’t seem so constrained.

  62. #64 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 3:12 pm

    The oil for food loophole was the only way left for the Iraqi administration to circumvent the punishing sanctions placed on them by, you guessed it, the U.S. aka: the strong arm of the plutarchs.

    Oh they toyed with the idea of messing with the petro-dollar relationships, but that would prove to be the last straw – it’s not insignificant that this very line of thought on Qaddafi’s would be part of the package that triggered his own demise. All propaganda about bolstering democracy should be buried in THAT mass-grave.

    No way would it be conducive to any western imperial visions if the Arab World were allowed to unify like Europe is attempting, like the United States is supposed to reflect (forget for a second any plutocratic, globalist, corporate, hawkish greed)… now would it.

    And we haven’t even brought up Iran or Israel. The hypocracy is palpable.

  63. #65 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 3:29 pm

    Punishing sanctions? Tell that to the Kuwaitis.

    What is it with the left’s love affair with mass murderers and dictators?

  64. #66 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 3:29 pm

    brewski–

    You don’t get it. The entire world except for the neocons and Faux News Channel acknowledges that the invasion of Iraq was a breach of the U.N. Charter.

    The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva. A “war waged without a clear mandate from the United Nations Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force.” We note with “deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.”

  65. #67 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 4:11 pm

    You don’t get it. Most of the members of the UN are in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Go send in the blue helmets and enforce that.

  66. #68 by cav on June 25, 2012 - 4:22 pm

    I’m sure one of Bush the lesser’s ethics counselors would step up to the plate, and ‘for the country’, of course.

  67. #69 by Richard Warnick on June 25, 2012 - 4:33 pm

    brewski–

    Once again, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty like the U.N. Charter.

    Your theory that human rights can be brought up to western standards through the use of military force is not applicable in most circumstances. For example, NATO has had troops in Afghanistan for more than a decade, but the human rights situation there has not improved.

  68. #70 by brewski on June 25, 2012 - 5:04 pm

    I never suggested that we need to make Afghanistan a western democracy. I am saying that the UN said that all Member countries need to be democracies. Period. Go take it up with the UN since they have so much authority and legitimacy in your eyes.

  69. #71 by Larry Bergan on June 25, 2012 - 6:58 pm

    Maybe John Bolton’s vision of the UN is what we need. Personally, I’d try Captain Kangaroo’s first, and I don’t even know what that would be.

    As far as democracies go, the UN’s vision is as good as ours, since we don’t have one anymore.

  70. #72 by Larry Bergan on June 25, 2012 - 7:10 pm

    Do Republicans remember when Bush showed the video of himself looking under his desk and around the Oval office for weapons of mass destruction and quiping “nope, not here, nope, not there”.

    I think they do remember and they were rolling on the ground laughing at how upset and disgusted the liberals would be. I’d bet you the soldiers they pretend to love and respect so much were pretty disgusted too.

    Think?

    Think Fox “news” ever planned to put a soldier on their station to say how he felt about that?

  71. #73 by cav on June 27, 2012 - 9:17 am

    Good article on ‘Fast and Furious’:

    “A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political blood-lust.”

    http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/?hpt=hp_t2

  72. #74 by Richard Warnick on June 27, 2012 - 10:26 am

    That is a good article. In brief:

    (1) Through legislation, the National Rifle Association made it almost impossible to stop guns bought in the USA from falling into the hands of Mexican outlaws.

    (2) The Bush administration’s ATF failed to stop guns from crossing the border.

    (3) Right-wing partisan Republicans blamed the Obama administration, inventing a conspiracy theory that it was a plot to promote restoration of the assault weapons ban.

    (4) Now the GOP is staging a vote to stick AG Holder with contempt of Congress, having never called the relevant witnesses (e.g. former AG Mukasey).

    (5) The National Rifle Association, paranoid about the conspiracy theory, is scoring the vote. This means Rep. Jim Matheson and other cowardly Dems are going to vote for the contempt citation.

  73. #75 by cav on June 27, 2012 - 11:43 am

    (6) Arizona gun law is practically non-existent.

    (7) There’s a lot going on out there.

    As I read it, I couldn’t help but think about the agents chasing people and leads that would later be part of the Twin Towers massacre – the frustrating bureaucratic attention to detail on the one hand and the need for action on the other.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: