White House: U.S. Invaded Iraq ‘Under U.N. Authorization’
White House: U.S. Invaded Iraq ‘Under U.N. Authorization’
In an effort to push back against congressional efforts to rescind the original 2002 Iraq War resolution, White House press spokesman Tony Fratto on Friday argued the United Nations had authorized the initial U.S. invasion of Iraq:
“The president said this isn’t the fight we entered in Iraq, but it’s the fight we’re in,” Fratto told reporters Friday. “We went in as a multinational force under U.N. authorization to take military action in Iraq. We were there as an occupying force, and now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.”
Actually, the White House did not invade Iraq “under U.N. authorization.” President Bush had promised to take the issue to the U.N. Security Council “no matter what the whip count,” but never did. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan described the invasion of Iraq as “not in conformity with the UN charter…from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”
It’s one thing to spin history; it’s quite another to rewrite it from scratch.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
This shameless revisionism is no surprise. The dust had hardly cleared after “major combat” phase before Bush was claiming justification because “Saddam refused to let the inspectors in”, as naked a lie as he’s ever told.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pmI am very sure that the UN voted to Attack Iraq if they didn’t stop there actions. Since they didn’t stop, it meant we were free to attack. This is very clear.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:45 pmAnd R^2 repeats said naked lie, as if on cue.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe only clear thing here is that the Bush administration is lying…AGAIN.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pmThe Iraq war was over when Baghdad was invaded, why are you still there ?? You’re certainly not invited.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:50 pmRx2, do you even have a clue about the proper usage of the words “there” and “their”?
If your moronic opinions weren’t enough to brand you as an idiot, your lack of command of the written word would certainly tip the balance.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pmDo they expect anybody to believe this bullsh!t?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:52 pmWhat actions Roger_Roger? You mean the WMD program that wasn’t real? How do you stop something you are not doing?
You just eat up the lies don’t you?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pmAnd so it begins….
February 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pmWe didn’t need to do a “whip count”, we had authorization under the UN from the first Gulf War (Poppy Bush). Saddam didn’t comply and the UN resolutions were looking toothless. It took a real macho president to make the spineless UN look like a real governing body.
We had the resolution. Give up your weapons or we will use force.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmThe U.S. doesn’t need authorization.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmHey, hey-hey Rog!
Try reading, once in a while:
(from link above:)
Bush, you’re a war criminal.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:55 pmAs clear as knowing where the WMD’s were and the connection of Iraq and Al Qaeda, right roger roger? As clear as just about anything else this administration has pushed on us.
Re-read Kofi Anon’s comments
That’s what clear cacca cranium
February 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI don’t care if the UN demanded that we attack Iraq. Just because we might have (or think we have) the right to do something does not mean it is the right thing to do. We had other options in responding to Iraq and Hussein’s regime and BushCo made damn sure none of those were on the table. War was the preferred, not last, option.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmThey can rewrite all the history they want and get away with it, thanks to the stupid, frightened, totally ineffectual Democratic MAJORITY. There really is no hope whatsoever. Sorry.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI’m encouraged that they feel they need to create this lie. It shows that they are feeling the heat. They didn’t need to sputter, “but …, but …, but …,” quite so much before.
This White House is digging a credibility hole so deep that the entire Republican Party will have trouble climbing out of it for a long time. Too bad they’re destroying the country and our planet in the process.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pmWow… I mean I’ve seen this administration make some false claims before, but this one takes the cake! I mean, afterall, the “coalition of the willing” was this huge selling point of how the “international community” wanted to start this BECAUSE the UN did not!
It takes some huge cajones to keep redefining history like this!
February 26th, 2007 at 2:00 pmIraqi Cabinet approves draft oil law
1 hour, 13 minutes ago
“This law will guarantee for Iraqis, not just now but for future generations too, complete national control over this natural wealth,” Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani said.
wait till tommorro and find out the details of this lie ,, bet you any money
February 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm#2 Roger
what actions?! Its been proven that Iraq wasn’t DOING ANYTHING. The inspectors were there, and would have proven this sooner had they not had to flee the approaching attack that was Shock and Awe…
get your facts right idiot. And for f*cks sake man, THERE, THEIR and THEY’RE… are not interchangeable
February 26th, 2007 at 2:02 pmNow blame the UN. Powell’s lie didn’t work and Bush said ” the US would go it alone”. As you see we’re going it alone. Why? Because Bush/Cheney were after the oil rights not the never there WMD. Look for more lies and blame to come as even the troops have said we’re in the middle of a civil war and our troops are being shot like ducks. Oh Cheney knows alot about shooting ducks but is scared to serve in the military as a real man would. Bush will do what he does best. The little rich boy will get into trouble and have his Daddy buy his way out. The Bush twins learned that too.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:02 pmThe U.S. doesn’t need authorization.
Comment by Patrick1
I guess this post brilliantly (no sarcasm) expresses the 30%´s desires and POV about where US is situated in the world. I guess Dale, Exley, Roger and paul should spit it out like Patrick did, instead of wasting time trying to defend the undefendable.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIsn’t it the Bush cabal that said that the UN is “quaint?” Now they are using the UN as evidence? Sorry, can’t have it both ways. Flip floppers.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:04 pmWe will know the truth of the matter once history has been rewritten and repeated often enough - and loudly enough.
Who knows, maybe the UN had actually begged us to pack Democracy into little bombs and deliver it to the Iraqi men, women and children posthaste.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pm.
There’s no denying this is spinning, but Iraq was in violation of multiple previous Security Council resolutions. They were one of the main reasons cited by the White House for taking stronger action — Iraq had been defying the Security Council for years (sort of like Iran is doing now with its nuclear program). While there was no new resolution passed, with a hefty bit of spin the previous resolutions could be construed to support “military action.”
February 26th, 2007 at 2:07 pmThis has nothing to do with the intial authorization to use force voted on by the Congress in 2002. The war started in March of 2003. Iraqi elections came later in 2004.
UN Security Council did not have a vote on starting the war….
The Security Council had a vote to send inspectors to Iraq and wait for their final report.
But Bush was ready to attack,and he said the UN will not deter him…In fact he used the word ‘irrelevant’ describing the UN Security Council and the needed vote , should he decide to take on Iraq.
Now we hear that the UN Security Council authorised the war…!!!
Kofi Annan said that from his point of view the war was ‘illegal’. The issue here is the ‘vote to authorise use of force’ with respect to UN resolutions,based on disarmament of Iraq.
There is not one UN Security resolution that talked about ‘Regime change’ in Iraq..or toppling the Iraqi government by force.
On the conterary, the resolutions called for ‘respect of the Iraqi government sovereignty’ during inspections.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:08 pmCan we get a fund going to send every member of the Senate and the House a copy of 1984 by Orwell? Only problem would be getting them to read it and then understand the implications of revisionist history…
February 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pmThe Iraqis people do not want us to be there. We need to bring our troops home now. We also need to impeach Bush and Cheney for war crimes starting today. GET THEM OUT OF OFFICE.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pmHere we go again…. when ever the information does not fit the current administrations agenda, they Flip it…..
Well, Im flipping you something Fratto and it is not my words!
February 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pmWe don’t need authorization. Iraq ignored countless U.N. Resolutions and the head of the U.N. was bought and paid for by Saddam through the Oil for Food Program. Bush received authorization from the U.S. Congress which has moral authority along with the President to defend the United States. The U.N. has no moral authority to tell the United States what it can and can’t do.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:11 pmNever mind the historical revisionism, what about the state of reality…
“now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.”
… spilling the blood of American troops and squandering the money of American taxpayers so that when our New And Improved mission is accomplished, they can award oil field contracts to France and leave us with “Bye Bye With Thanks.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15526137/
There is nothing for us to win in this war, and that makes this war unwinnable for us.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:12 pmUh, no.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pmSorry, but re-writing history should be left to the historians, not the lyingbastardometer peggers…
There’s no denying this is spinning, but Iraq was in violation of multiple previous Security Council resolutions.
So Israel and US in the short history of the UN. Should the rest of the world bomb the US?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:14 pmOld Red Neck,
Would that be the same, “It took a real macho president”, who sat in the classroom on 9/11 because he’s a baby impersonating a macho man and was waiting for someone to tell him what to do? Or, would that be the macho president who, according to the official lie, at the moment that war was being waged against this country on our soil, he didn’t want to scare a room full of elementary school kids by standing up and doing something as scarry as saying, “Kids, it’s been fun, but your president has something he has to do, take care, i love you all, and BYE.” Oh, sooooooo scarry.
I guess not be an uber Macho-Man, like baby bush, THANK GOD, I simply don’t understand his actions. Like when he walks hand in had with the Saudi royals who finance Bin Laden, and then he kisses them on the lips, you know Macho-Man stuff like that is just beyond a sissy like me who just finds that stuff really disgusting (sorry that’s just my orientation, it’s fine for other people.)
I guess i’m just a sucker for believing what I see with my own eyes.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm#10 redneck > Who decides that Iraq didn’t comply?!! is it the UN Security Council or Bush?!!, since you used the UN resolutions as your basis for the argument.
After all no WMDS were found after the war…and inspectors and the Iraqi government said there were no WMDS before the war started.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:16 pm#11
February 26th, 2007 at 2:17 pmThen don’t be shocked Pattie, when you’re standing in the docket at the Hague with your buddies.
This is a very significant lie in legal terms. Had the U.S. submitted the matter to a vote before the Security Council and lost, then without question the war is illegal. The Bush administration had only 4 of the 11 votes needed when they decided to forgo the vote. Instead they carried out their fallback plan, which was to attack based on a far-fetched interpretation of earlier UN resolutions. So bottom line: Tony Snow told another egregious lie.
Roger2, you are complete dolt.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:17 pmWhat happened to Tony Snow? The White House is now sending out the second in command. Fratto is really incompetent. He boldly lies to the reporters. I don’t know if that’s gutsy or plain stupid.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pmWhile there was no new resolution passed, with a hefty bit of spin the previous resolutions could be construed to support “military action.â€
Comment by Eric Hundman — February 26, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Nope, sorry Eric, that argument just doesn’t work. The U.S. was making that very argument to the Security Council to get a new resolution to attack, but was so far short of support that the vote was never held.
For Tony Snow to say something so brazenly wrong shows just how desperate they are, because only the koolaid drinkers could ever possibly lap up this piss on the truth (I’m talking to you, Patrick). They are trying to keep the 30 percent from falling to 20%, while hoping they can continue to divide the growing opposition.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pmold red neck is satire, but this is not:
It is fun watching people like Patrick1 try to prop-up and attack the UN in one short paragraph.
I’ll bet when these talking points came in, the righties were like:
“What the hell? Now we LIKE the UN? Jeebus help us. I signed up for lying, but this is backpedaling”
February 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm#32 Juan,
When did the United Nations Security Council ever pass a resolution finding that the United States was in breach of Security Council resolution?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe US government, like any other nation in the world, must follow international law. Especially if it expects other nations to accept any claim that it is certain rights of action because other groups do not follow that law.
The US is not omnipotent. If our government pushes the rest of the world too much, then it will be isolated and crushed.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:27 pmThe U.S. doesn’t need authorization.
According to the UN charter, we do. And as a treaty we signed and ratified, according to the Constitution, said charter is “the supreme law of the land”.
Why do you hate the US Constitution?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:28 pmHow do they believe that they can continue to spin such blatant, outright lies?? The people will no longer be scammed by such a ruse as this. Unfortunately, we all know the sad truth that we’ve been scammed and lied to by those purporting to be working in our best interest. It’s George Orwell’s fantasy, that’s what this administration has become.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:30 pmBush, you’re a war criminal.
Comment by wake-n-bake #12
…That oughta clear things up for Rogue_Roger…
…but it won’t…
…his ignorance is on purpose…
…he likes being a sheep…
baaaa baaaaa
February 26th, 2007 at 2:32 pmOops, I see that it wasn’t Snow who said it, but another Bush mouthpiece. No matter. What I said still stands.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pmBush should be ANSWERING questions today about sending our tax dollars to Al-Qaida instead of his pinning the “medal of honor” on a Viet Nam vet today at the White House.
Its time for all the STAGE CRAFTING to end. I’m sick of having to hear his hand picked audience laugh at his stupid jokes, as well.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pmdidn’t he write a Dear Congress letter as required by AUMF?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:36 pmAnother Iraq suicide bomb goes off, just as Bush gets to play Commander-in-Chief at the White House and pin the medal of honor on a Viet Nam war vet.
NICE STAGE CRAFTING WHITE HOUSE!
While America learns the White House is funneling money to Al-Qaida without congressional approval, Bush pins a medal on a Viet Nam war veteran. He also tells lame jokes to the guffaws of his hand selected friendly audience and its all beamed live into our homes.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pmDoublespeak, Doubletalk
February 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pmWe did= We didn’t
U.N. good = U.N. bad
Iraq = Iran
Afghan = Iraq
Security = Oil
I think it’s fair to peg the Bushies as the ‘Owellian’ government. Or at least the Bizarro Bush Bunch.
This is happening before our very eyes.
Wake up, America! It’s Go time!
As we speak, Darth and the chymp are working feverishly trying to sell us
February 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm“The bombing of Iranâ€.
Kinda like a used car salesman parking a junker in your driveway and slipping the inflated invoice under your door.
Hey, you bought it!
The New World Order rushes in.
The One World Government which we are all being conditioned to accept as the sole authority in the world is the United Nations.
America was lost to the global elite in 1913, when the Federal Reserve was created.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:54 pmIt really is “1984″.. Wow..
February 26th, 2007 at 2:57 pmRoger Roger is a dumbass Repuke troll. He’s spewing the Repuke LIE that the first UN resolution gave Chimpy power to attack Iraq.
It did NOT. Kofi Annan is correct, the Iraq war is ILLEGAL.
You Repukes are lying, cheating, torturing, treasonous criminals.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:02 pmComment by Zimzone — February 26, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
you forgot one.
Global Warming = Record snow fall.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:06 pmIsn’t it the Bush cabal that said that the UN is “quaint?†Now they are using the UN as evidence? Sorry, can’t have it both ways. Flip floppers.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Spudge, I believe it was Abu Gonzales who said the Geneva Conventions were “quaint.”
John Bolton said the UN could lose the top 10 floors and it wouldn’t mean anything, or wouldn’t make a difference.
Way to go, Tony Fratto. Looks like you’ll fit right in.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:17 pmAfter the war began in 2003,the whole issue switched from WMDS to toppling Saddam(regime change), and democracy in Iraq.
While the intial argument was based on the illusive WMDS of Saddam. It is all now about freedom of the Iraqis AND democracy in Iraq
What UN resolution/s called for toppling Saddam , free the Iraqis and bring democracy by foreign power?!!
February 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pmDon’t be afraid to admit you do not understand how global warming affects climate change and can cause localized changes in both directions of the weather and temp scale…. remember, you are only ignorant if you continue to choose to be. Time to learn and be smart people!
February 26th, 2007 at 3:22 pmDoes anyone know the hackish background of Fratto? I couldn’t easily find a bio via google.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:24 pmIn re: Patrick1
Bush to the UN - ‘Authorization? We doan need no stinkin’ authorization.’
And just like Fred C. Dobbs we are lost in the desert, chasing a dream.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm…and now we’re there at the invitation of the sovereign, elected government of Iraq.â€
And members of that government asked Bush to offer up a timeline for withdrawal. Bush said we’d leave if the new government asked us to. They did. We are still there.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:30 pmComment by tarazan — February 26, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
In other words, we policed a part of the world and we’ve been involved in nation building.
Two things that candidate George Bush said the U.S. would never do if he were elected President.
And I don’t want to hear, “But 9/11…”
February 26th, 2007 at 3:36 pmIf it’s all about the UN now, should we listen when they say that:
U.N. calls U.S. data on Iran’s nuclear aims unreliable
February 25, 2007
Sound familiar? Iraq v2.0
February 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pmBush, March 10, 2006:
It’s not surprising, and not a new thing at all, the White House says it had backing in int. law to invade Iraq. It has to say so. Otherwise it is guilty of the Supreme Crime–Aggression–by its own admission. The legal theory on this is incredibly thin. But expect them to hold onto it forever.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pmCan someone find the exact words by Bush, when he
February 26th, 2007 at 3:44 pmwas asked if he would return to the U.N. for a second
vote? If I recall correctly, he said “It’s time to see
where the cards fall.”
When did the United Nations Security Council ever pass a resolution finding that the United States was in breach of Security Council resolution?
Comment by Exley — February 26, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
I think there would be a number of resolution passed against the Bush regime if it weren’t for U.S. veto power.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:45 pmBush said we’d leave if the new government asked us to. They did.
Actually, Bush’s puppets in the Iraq government, last I heard, had managed to keep the legislation demanding withdrawal illegally tied up in committee indefinitely, so it’s never been formally voted on. I suspect that this is one of the reasons the Sadrists walked out of Parliament a little while back (though I think they’ve either returned, or are considering returning). Were it to hit the floor of Parliament, it would easily pass.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:57 pmRes 678 authorized any “means necessary” to remove Saddam from Kuwait. That resolution was never terminated. Iraq had made numerous material breaches and violations which lead to military force (i.e. No-fly zones, Operation Desert Fox which were not explicitely authorized) in the 1990’s. Bill Clinton relied upon 678 with it’s revival in 687 to legitimize his use of military force in 1993, and 1998 leading to Res 1205.
In 2002-03 those resolutions were still in effect. Resolution 1441 does not explicitly authorize military force, but does revive 678 and 687. It was agreed by the U.N.S.C. that Iraq was in “material breach” of it’s cease-fire obligations and would face “serious consequenses”. “Serious consequences” as had been used in previous practice by Sec Concil members to mean military force, as it was intended to mean during 1441 negotiations.
The US, UK and Member States had the responsibilty and authority to enforce the cease fire aggreements, especially C.C. Res 687, 687, 1205, 1441.
Sorry TP, it’s not spinning history at all. Rather it’s your ignorance of previous S.C. Resolutions authorizing military force against Iraq that form your baseless criticism.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pmOh this is too damn funny.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pmIt does? Let’s take a look.
UN Security Council Resolution 678
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
Hmmmmmm, nothing about Saddam. Weird, I thought you were going to tell the truth Steed. I was wrong about you again.
So, let’s look at UN Security Resolution 660.
Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,
Hmmmmmm, nothing about Saddam there either and I am willing to bet he isn’t mentioned in Un Articles 39 or 40.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pmGreat name Steed. right out of a dime novel. Read thru the resolutions and found some strong words. Man, the UN people have resolutions for everything. I didn’t the the resolution stating that force was OK and authorized.
Great name though Steed. Kind of like Dirk Manshaft.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:46 pm#70 HIB ~
February 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pmHilarious!
I was thinking more like Harry HungLikeAHorse.
Your argument is that Saddam had nothing to do with Iraq’s aggression as described by S.C. Resolutions?
Let’s ask Maddie Albright in Jan 1998:
“As President Clinton affirmed last night, Iraq cannot continue to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions or to act in contempt of the community of nations. We cannot allow Saddam Hussein once again to brandish weapons of mass destruction and use them to intimidate Iraq’s neighbors and threaten the world. Over the next few days, I will be explaining the American position to leaders in the countries I visit, while making it clear that in confronting the clear and present danger posed by Iraqi lawlessness, the diplomatic string is running out.”
“We have made very clear that we have the authority to use military force, and we are not seeking a resolution.”
Nothing to do with Saddam. Right.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:57 pmYou shift like sands of time Steed. How about we name you flipper? Yeah, Flipper Hollownoggin.
Spudge knocked you down like a Cheney hunting partner and you just jumped over to old, worn out talking points. It’s 2007 Flipper.
Get with it.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:14 pmNope. I was very clear.
You said:
To which I posted UN Security Council Resolution, which referred to UN SC Res. 660, which:
1) condemns Iraqs invasion of Kuwait
2) calls for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait
3) start negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait
4) decides to meet again
I didn’t change anything or give you an opinion. I posted THE RESOLUTIONS for everybody to look at.
And proved you wron in the process.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:19 pmThere should be consequences for such irresponsible statements.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:20 pmPerhaps this individual should be force to serve in a low ranking
administrative job in the UN. That should be punishment enough.
to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660
This seems to indicate to me that using military force only, without attempting other means such as diplomacy, would be against the intent of the resolution as well.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm“Yes, as I recall, the whole world was practically begging us to invade……we thought it would be best to go ahead and do it, you know, from a foreign relations point of view…”
ROTFLMAO!!!!
IMPEACH!!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 5:31 pm678 implements 660 with “necessary means”. 678 was revived by Clinton to attack Iraq. 1441 did the same. Albright’s argument prevails here, and you’re beating the straw dog.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm[…] in Bush Administration, Iraq War, GOP, Government at 3:01 pm by LeisureGuy From ThinkProgress: In an effort to push back against congressional efforts to rescind the original 2002 Iraq War […]
February 26th, 2007 at 5:52 pmState Dept briefing, Dec 21, 1998 with Jim Foley:
Q: Jim, how should the international community view this announcement by the US Government that it’s up to the United States to decide if and when it’s time to resume military action again in Iraq?
FOLEY: Well, that goes to the very question of the authorization for the use of force. We believe that the original resolution - I believe it’s 678 - concerning the Gulf War provides continuing authorization to the United States, in as much as Iraq is failing to comply with its cease fire obligations — the obligations it undertook in order to achieve a cessation of the coalition’s military action back in 1991. We believe we have extent and ongoing authorization if Saddam continues to be in violation of his cease-fire commitments.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:53 pmAlbright’s argument trumps Kofi Anon’s? Which one was in charge of the UN?
Strawdog? You raised that pup, Flipper.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:54 pm#79
For arguments sake Lets say I agree with you.
How dose one then reconsile Cheneys 1991 statement ?
For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.â€
February 26th, 2007 at 6:05 pmVP Cheney 1991
BushCo brings up this ridiculous argument every time they run out of excuses for their illegal war of aggression. When that argument wars thin, they switch back to another phony argument, etc, etc. They say they are enforcing UN resolutions which Saddam broke many times, yaddah, yaddah. Thing is, if you’re going to enforce UN resolutions by force, the UN has to specifically authorize you to do that, which never happened. BushCo drove the inspectors out, cut off the UN process, and did exactly what they wanted to do. Bush followers are so delusional, they really do want to believe this crap.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:17 pmBABOOOOOM comes the quote from ol’ deadeye himself. “Classic definition of a quagmire”. I seem to remember a whole bunch more from the former Sec. of Defense about how stupid it would be to attack Iraq.
Care to refute these Steed?
February 26th, 2007 at 6:23 pmIf it makes this any clearer, no nation can unilaterally decide that another nation is in violation of UN resolutions and then unilaterally decide that it can enforce the resolutions by military force. No nation can unilaterally decide that an old resolution pertaining to Kuwait is still in effect and then unilaterally decide that invasion is required and unilaterally decide that the goal of the invasion is regime change.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:26 pmBushCo has always made it clear that they have absolutely no respect for the UN or for international law - they don’t believe in it.
Al Gore:
February 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm“I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration’s hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South - groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam.”
“no nation can unilaterally decide that another nation is in violation of UN resolutions”
What was the vote on 1441?
February 26th, 2007 at 6:43 pmNo Steed. No one is beating any straw dog.
YOU LIED AND I CALLED YOU ON IT. YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A PU$$Y TO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. YOU SAID:
AND THAT WAS A FU*KING LIE. YOU ARE A FU*KING LIAR AS ALWAYS STEED. NO DIFFERENT NOW THAT YOU WERE BEFORE YOU LEFT IN SHAME. LITTLE LYING B!TCH.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pmhttp://canberra.usembassy.gov/hyper/2002/0911/epf308.htm
The Senate and House resolutions noted that in the absence of full compliance by the Iraqi government with United Nations resolutions, the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 678 had authorized UN member states “to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”
Name calling is not an argument, s.
February 26th, 2007 at 6:59 pmSeems that we have a paid troll here. “Steed” must be a junior lawyer on the secret Cheney defense team trying to taint the jury pool.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:03 pmWhat you said the first time B!TCH.
What I posted directly from Res 678:
What your dumb a$$ posted the next time:
Your stupid a$$ is now proving MY CASE. You need to stop while you are ahead. Or in this case behind. If you don’t like name calling then stop addressing me, because you are losing this argument and everybody can see it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:09 pmState Dept briefing w/ James Rubin, March 1998:
Q: If this is the strongest language that you’ve seen after your experience there, why stop short there? You have severest consequences; why not just spell it out once and for all for Saddam to see and really have that to be the icing on the cake? Why not just make it plain?
RUBIN: Well, as is normal in the world of diplomacy and the resolutions of the Security Council, even Resolution 678 - the Gulf War Resolution - did not spell it out to the satisfaction of some people, if they wanted to see the word, “military force” or “ground invasion” or “air power.” Those are not words that are used in Security Council resolutions. That resolution, 678, authorized all necessary means to be used. We have said for some time that our view is that if Iraq violates this agreement, it will be in fundamental violation of Resolution 687, the Cease-Fire Resolution, which will then give rise to Resolution 6878, which authorizes the use of military force. So in our view, a new authority to use force is not necessary. What was useful was a clear threat from the international community directed at the leadership in Iraq that a failure to comply would lead to the severest consequences. That’s what the resolution says. That is a marked shift from the international lay of the land that existed just a couple of weeks ago, and that’s why this resolution is so important.”
February 26th, 2007 at 7:11 pmTony Fratto–typical LYING DEMAGOGUE from Bushland Uber Allies–LIES, LIES, MORE DAMN LIES!!!!! Every word Bushland Uber Allies says is a LIE, including “I”, “and”, and “the”! Bushland Uber Allies WOULDN’T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT CAME UP AND BIT THEM IN THE ASS!!!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmArguing over semantics? Any, all, Saddam, Iraq. Whatever. Beat that straw dog all night long, s. But can you refute the substance of my argument?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pmLooks like the Steed pulled up lame.
I wonder if this administration will try to make this case when they are being tried in front of the Hague for ware crimes?
February 26th, 2007 at 7:22 pmNo semantics. If Resolution 678 says.
It does not mean we can use ANY MEANS. It means all means listed in resolution 660.
You may not know the difference, but that just shows your stupidity.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:25 pmSo what are you arguing? 678 did not authorize the use of force?
Clinton, Dec 18, 1998:
February 26th, 2007 at 7:30 pm”
At approximately 5:00 p.m. eastern standard time on December 16, 1998, at my direction, U.S. military forces conducted missile and aircraft strikes in Iraq in response to Iraqi breaches of its obligations under resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The strikes will degrade Iraq’s ability to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction WMD) and its ability to threaten its neighbors. This action, carried out in concert with military forces of the United Kingdom, enjoys the support of many of our friends and allies. It is consistent with and has been taken in support of numerous U.N. Security Council resolu-tions, including Resolutions 678 and 687, which authorize U.N. Member States to use “all necessary means” to implement the Security Council resolutions and to restore peace and security in the region and establish the terms of the cease-fire mandated by the Council, including those related to the destruction of Iraq’s WMD programs.”
Steed, is your general argument that the U.N. approved of Bush’s invasion of Iraq? Because you know that’s not true. The U.N. was clear on this. The General Secretary of the U.N. referred to Bush’s invasion as “illegal.”
Is your argument that Clinton or Gore would have invaded Iraq. You know that’s not true. Clinton wanted to keep sanctions and no-fly zones in place to keep Saddam reigned in and Gore was dead-set against an invasion in 2002.
You’re just obfuscating and revising. This foreign policy disaster is all Bush. That’s how history will correctly remember it. You are on the wrong side of history, a-hole. And you’re too much of a cultist to realize it.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:48 pmWell, I guess what you propose is that Clinton misused resolution 678 also, because as you can see from the resolutions 678 and 660, as I have posted in this thread, neither one calls for force.
In fact, now that I scroll back up and read it again:
It is quite clear that force was NOT what was called for.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:50 pmComment by VerbalKint — February 26, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
If he is, he’s not a very good one. Any post to thoroughly explore the contexts of these various resolutions he cherry picks would be way too long for this forum. Besides, I’ve debunked this crap before. So “steed” don’t bother going off on me. Google my name and you’ll find lots of posts I’ve made here at Think Progress over the past several months. Frankly, debating with you would be like beating a dead horse.
Personally, I would put more stock in a Secretary General’s interpretation of the U.N. Charter and the various resolutions than I would in an annonymous poster who comes on this site to support the Bush Administration’s spin.
So, Steed, what’s your background in International Law? Any experience reading the U.N. Charter? Or the Charter of the International Court of Justice? Or the European Convention on Human Rights? Or the Geneva Conventions? etc., etc., etc. How about the cases from the International Court of Justice? Read any of those? The U.S. came out rather poorly in the Nicaragua case. Did you catch that one? Did you note how it shaped international law regarding clandestine operations? How about arguing a case in an International Law forum, or even in a International Law Moot Court?
It’s bad enough the trolls post this talking point, now the White House itself is pushing this lie. I wonder how the White House is going to deal with the inevitable backlash.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:51 pm[…] White House: U.S. Invaded Iraq ‘Under U.N. Authorization’ […]
February 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pmBNF, clever diversion without refuting the argument. or Albright’s or Rubin’s or Clinton’s…
Why would I read your condescending crap? You have no argument other than descreditng the messenger. VENI VICI VETI.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:07 pmBNF, clever diversion without refuting the argument. or Albright’s or Rubin’s or Clinton’s…
Why would I read your condescending crap? You have no argument other than descreditng the messenger. VENI VICI VETI.
Comment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
This is what Resolution 678 states:
“Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;”
Resolution 660 and on condemns Iraq for invading Kuwait, demands that Iraq withdraw and meet Kuwait at the negotiation table.
It looks like Clinton f*cked up.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:24 pmComment by Steed Lankershim — February 26, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
I’ve already refuted your arguments before you ever showed up here under this alias.
Now unless you can somehow demonstrate that you are more versed in International Law than Kofi Annan your entire argument is entirely without merit.
Because, you see, the examples you mentioned are readily distinguished from Bush’s invasion of a sovereign country. I know, it’s a subtle distinction, but the U.N. is surprisingly resistant when it comes to invading sovereign countries. And the “necessary means” phrase you toss about so freely was limited to enforcing sanctions, not deposing a head of state.
The U.N. Charter clearly prohibits wars of aggression. And because war is so devastating both in human and property costs, any U.N. sanction for war must be clear and unequivocal. It is a violation of international law to take a resolution calling for the enforcement of sanctions and claim it is an authorization to invade a sovereign country.
You see, Steed, I have studied international law, at the International Court of Justice, at the European Court of Human Rights, and other venues throughout Europe. I have studied International Human Rights, and argued a case in an International Moot Court.
Your arguments are flat-out wrong, and if you used them in defense in a War Crimes Tribunal your client would be convicted. Fortunately, however, the maximum penalty in international courts is life without parole, so your client would not be hung like Saddam Hussein, with a lynch mob taunting him as he plunged through the trap door.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:37 pmKeith O. just named Tony Fratto “Worst Person in the World” for this crap from him today!!
I guess real news will be the day we don’t have a scum-bag, boy-touching, Troll-Aid drinking, completely worthless Repugniscum telling the truth, uh?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:43 pmKeith O., in his Special Comments tonight, has just handed our punked Sec of State her hat, with her brain in it, and a kick in the a$$ with a new pair of pumps. Jeez is Condomlooser Rice stupid or what?
February 26th, 2007 at 8:53 pmSteed,
A very impressive recitation of the facts, the various resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council in the 1990s re: Iraq, and the Clinton administration’s interpretation of those resolutions.
It is always a pleasure to see someone stick to the facts rather than resort to invective and diversion.
At least, Spudge engaged you on the facts and argued his case based on the wording of the resolutions. BnF, on the other hand, did not even try to argue the facts or the law, choosing instead — as he so often does when he finds himself outclassed by someone with a superior grasp of the facts and the law — to divert attention from the substance of the debate by claiming he once took part in some moot court competition.
Again, Steed…Well done.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:07 amLOL Bush hates the UN, but now he uses them as a cover for his Iraq Fiasco War. Next he will claim the UN forced him to attack & invade Iraq.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:16 amPerhaps the Downing St. memos would be helpful? Here are a few exerpts:
MARCH 14, 2002
I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and talks and lunch with her an NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came). These were good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were one-on-one at dinner. I attach the records in case you want to glance.
IRAQ
We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option.
From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:
- how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;
- what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;
- how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);
- what happens on the morning after?
MARCH 22 2002
US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that:
- the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for;
- it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran).
CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL
JULY 23, 2002
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
2. In the UK’s view a violation of Iraq’s obligations which undermines the basis of the cease-fire in resolution 687 (1991) can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 (1990). As the cease-fire was proclaimed by the Council in resolution 687 (1991), it is for the Council to assess whether any such breach of those obligations has occurred.
The US have a rather different view: they maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member states.
We are not aware of any other state which supports this view.
The US have on occasion claimed that the purpose of the NFZs is to enforce Iraqi compliance with resolutions 687 or 688. This view is not consistent with resolution 687, which does not deal with the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, or with resolution 688, which was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and does not contain any provision for enforcement.
For the exercise of the right to self-defence there must be more than “a threatâ€. There has to be an armed attack actual or imminent. The development or possession of nuclear weapons does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an imminent attack.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/FCOlegaladvicetext.html
February 27th, 2007 at 12:29 amhttp://www.downingstreetmemo.com/strawtext.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/rickettstext.html
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/rickettstext.html
The tighter the noose gets around the Bushies’ necks, the bigger, the badder, and bolder the lies will get. These guys just reek of icy cold flopsweat desperation at this point. Be careful, folks. As they all realize the end is inevitable and growing ever nearer, they will become exceedingly dangerous in their death throes.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:56 amComment by Exley — February 27, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Ex-lie - I’ve already refuted Steed’s BS months ago. I’m not at your nor his beck and call to continue to dredge up the same arguments. Use “the Google” and you can find my previous arguments. I’m tired of doing your homework for you. You’ll note Steed refused to do just that. So it’s not me that’s avoiding anything, it’s you and Steed who refuse to look.
But then, in your mind, you know better than the Secretary General of the U.N.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:15 am[…] White House press spokesman Tony Fratto: “The president said this isn’t the fight we entered in Iraq, but it’s the fight we’re […]
February 27th, 2007 at 8:05 amSteed Lankershim actually elevated this conversation quite a bit. His argument explained the “incredibly thin” theory the legality of the invasion rests upon that I mentioned in my earlier comment. Not fair to attack him as a troll, he’s just stating plainly the defense of those who started this war should a Nuremberg trial ever be convened.
If you look at this theory, as Lord Goldsmith first did in March 2003, you’d conclude that ready-to-launch-WMD damn well better be found in order for the “revived” 678/687 theory to hold. Obviously this was not the case, and Iraq did not lie in its December 2002 declaration. But does anyone suppose the Security Council will ever again take this up in a meaningful way and hold anyone responsible? Of course not!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am[…] Think Progress » White House: U.S. Invaded Iraq ‘Under U.N. Authorization’ […]
February 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am[…] To the original post… […]
February 27th, 2007 at 12:31 pmBNF
“You’ll note Steed refused to do just that. So it’s not me that’s avoiding anything, it’s you and Steed who refuse to look”
I only presented the view of the US regarding the use of military force during the post-Gulf War years, with quotes and evidence. There are plenty of reputable international lawyers that disagree with Kofi and you, as did the previous administration.
I’m also well aware of the arguments claiming 678, 687, 1441, etc do not justify the use of military force against Iraq. I don’t need to read your POV, as your credibility is suspect. Your condescending comments and personal attacks lead me to believe you’re are not interested in honest debate. Your agenda is to embarrass the US and smear political enemies. I did google BNF and found just that. However, I can’t find critical comments on the war policies of the previous administration against Yugoslavia and Iraq…war policies that were not explicitly authorized by the UN. As the evidence clearly shows, Clinton justified military force under existing S.C.R.’s and felt he had the authority he needed to act against the threat from Saddam’s Iraq.
You, my friend, are guilty of special pleading.
You also have refused to ackowledge that there have been more than 100 acts of military aggression by many member countries since the UN Charter, resulting in the death of millions. It seems you may be cherry-picking here, promoting the idea that the US is one of the worst offenders of human rights (according to one of your posts), at least when a Republican is in power, while ignoring the violations of others. Like I said, special pleading.
How Secretary Albright dealt with hand-wringing lawyers like you: “Get new lawyers.”
February 27th, 2007 at 2:54 pm…has the pedantic prevaricator finally met his match!? or will his solipsistic sophistry avail him an avenue of aversion!? can steed lankershim pierce the Ex-Man’s fortress of pragmitude? will the Ex-Man revise?, or redact!?
February 27th, 2007 at 11:06 pmWhat if Iraq was the United States in 1964? February 1, 1964, at the height of segregation in the United States, the British send a military force taking control of the south of the United States deploying forces across Alabama, Tennessee Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida.
Following repeated warnings voiced in the United Nations and through media outlets, the British rally the support of Spain to create a “coalition of the willing” to oust the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, who was seen as directly responsible for not fully supporting legislation to implement a Civil Rights Act, in strict violation of the Magna Carta.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:44 am