Bush didn't lie
to think such, you have to believe sitting Democratic Senators and House Members, some of whom had direct access to the same intelligence, all of whom had colleagues who had access to the same intelligence, were actually hoodwinked by W. That means you think the Democrats who are actually lying today are really fucking retards. You see, the revisionists lie to their flock today because they can. Sad for you really.
You also have to believe the UN, big fans of Bush eh, were willing accomplishes. Along with intelligence agencies throughout the world and international leaders.
To believe Bush lied, you have to have blinders on.
but hey, I understand why some need to keep it simple, that way they can have hope that the POTUS can actually save their asses
:lol:
to think such, you have to believe sitting Democratic Senators and House Members, some of whom had direct access to the same intelligence, all of whom had colleagues who had access to the same intelligence, were actually hoodwinked by W. That means you think the Democrats who are actually lying today are really fucking retards. You see, the revisionists lie to their flock today because they can. Sad for you really.
You also have to believe the UN, big fans of Bush eh, were willing accomplishes. Along with intelligence agencies throughout the world and international leaders.
To believe Bush lied, you have to have blinders on.
but hey, I understand why some need to keep it simple, that way they can have hope that the POTUS can actually save their asses
:lol:
According to our former UN Ambassador Bill Richardson...and current member of President elect Obama's administration...for quite a few years now.
==============
The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson:
There has been some discussion on the legal authority of the United States and by the same token those associated or allied with the United States to take action involving the potential use of force against Iraq. It has been said "You must go to the security council and get a fresh resolution."
I do not think that it is so as a matter of legal interpretation. In fact the gulf operation was rather special. It was undertaken by a government on Canada's part previous to the present one, and the United States by a president previous to the present president. What was done was a little different from classic UN peacekeeping operations or peacemaking operations where in fact there is a UN force under the aegis of the UN secretary-general and responsible to the secretary-general.
In fact what was done was a series of umbrella resolutions delegating the power to the United States commander in chief and responsible to the president of the United States. I say that was an unusual action but the series of resolutions have a broad, legal authority for which I think it can reasonably be argued that the authority to take the present action is there.
12. http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/nt10302.html
13. The speech by the Right Honorable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, delivered during a debate in the House of Commons on 26 February 1998: House of Commons Debates. Speech by the Honorable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered to a meeting in Ottawa on the occasion of the launch of the final report of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, 17 February 1998, DFAIT Statements: 98/9.
14. Canada, House of Commons, debates 26 February 1998.
15. ASIL Flash Insight: "The Legal Background On The Use Of Force To Induce Iraq To Comply With Security Council Resolutions," by Frederic L. Kirgis, November 1997. Reproduced in Appendix 4.
16. New York Times, 5 February 1998, pg. A.6, "UN Resolutions Allow Attack On The Like Of Iraq."
17. New York Times, 7 February 1998, pg. A5, "The Issues Are Political More Than Legal At The UN."
18. New York Times, 4 February 1998, "U.S. Citing Its Authority In 1991 Congress Measure."
David Christopher Kelly CMG (May 14,<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1]</sup> 1944 – July 17, 2003) was an employee of the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (MoD), an expert in biological warfare and a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq. Kelly's discussion with Today Programme journalist Andrew Gilligan about the British government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq inadvertently caused a major political scandal. He was found dead days after appearing before the Parliamentary committee charged with investigating the scandal.
The second trip was from 5 June 2003 - 11 June 2003, when Kelly went to view and photograph the two mobile weapons laboratories as a part of a third inspection team. Kelly was unhappy with the description of the trailers and spoke off the record to The Observer, which, on 15 June 2003, quoted "a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq." The expert said,
They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.[4]
It was confirmed in the Hutton Inquiry that Kelly was the source of this quote.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_David_Kelly
And Fuck Karl Rove....
