On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 03:33:08PM -0500, judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>
> The Brits were worried until we told them that "the intelligence
> will be fixed around the policy", remember. And the reports which
> congress saw (both parties), were the "fixed" ones.
>
> Congress certainly could have questioned the intelligence;
Correct. They *could* have but they chose not to. They have security
clearances. They have the ability to hold closed-door and/or classified
hearings. Yet they did not.
> there
> was some conflicting evidence available publicly that they should have
> been aware of.
Such as?
> Some members of congress did state that they had
> reservations, but were voting for the resolution because Saddam Hussein
> would only respond to a threat that had teeth.
That means one of two things:
1. There was, in fact, available contravening evidence which they
ignored in the interestes of political expediency
OR
2. There was no such evidence (or if there was it was not credible)
In either case, they got what they asked for.
> Whether they actually
> thought that Bush would seek further authorization before invading is
> probably impossible to determine at this point.
>
Please note the following excerpt from the authorization:
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
First, many or all of the UN resolutions specifically authorized the use
of military force in order to enforce compliance. Second, here is a
little excerpt from UN Security Council resolution 1441:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its
resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November
1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688
(1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of
11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17
December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its
intention to implement it fully,
...
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned
Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its
continued violations of its obligations;
The point is that Iraq wanted its neighbors to think it had WMDs. It
did so by denying access to the inspectors and failing to provide
required documentation and insufficient documentation when it did.
Saddam did a great job. He managed to convince everybody he had WMDs.
> Lastly, it's hardly "liberal revisionist history", since some of
> the people who spoke out about the distorting of intelligence that was
> going on at the time were conservatives.
>
Like whom?
Regards,
-Roberto
[0] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
--
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature