Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
 

Vice president says 'we would do exactly the same thing' regardless of intel

Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC

President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday.

In the build-up to the U.S. invasion in 2003, Bush and other administration leaders argued that Saddam should be removed from power because he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking to build a nuclear weapon.

Subsequent investigations concluded that he did not have such weapons, and in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney acknowledged that, "clearly, the intelligence that said he did was wrong."

Asked by "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.

"He'd done it before," Cheney said. "He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in '91."

The U.S. invasion "was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing," he said.


U.S. will being tested
Cheney also said he was wrong when he said shortly before the invasion that U.S. forces would be "greeted as liberators." Instead, more than three years later, violent resistance to the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad continues, and more than 2,600 U.S. service members have been killed.

"No doubt, we did not anticipate that the insurgency would last this long," Cheney said. The United States must stay the course, however, because while the situation is "difficult," it is significantly better, he said.

Cheney acknowledged opinion polls that show that a majority of the U.S. public believes Iraq is a more dangerous threat than it was before U.S. forces invaded.

"The people obviously are frustrated because of the difficulty, because of the cost and the casualties, but you cannot look at Iraq in isolation," he said. "You have to look at it within the context of the broader global war on terror. ... If Saddam Hussein were still in power, we would be in a vastly worse position."

Should the United States pull out of Iraq, Cheney said, the governments of Iraq and Pakistan, which he said had staked their futures on the U.S. commitment, would conclude that "the United States hasn't got the stomach for the fight. Bin Laden's right, al-Qaida's right, the United States has lost its will and will not complete the mission."

U.S. faces long haul in Afghanistan
In neighboring Afghanistan, meanwhile, a U.S.-backed government is facing its worst surge of violence in the nearly five years since the United States booted out the militant Islamic Taliban government, and Cheney said Western forces would likely be fighting a nationwide insurgency for "some considerable period of time."

Appearing on "Meet the Press" on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Cheney similarly defended the U.S. military performance in Afghanistan, contending that "we are much better off today because Afghanistan is not the safe haven for terrorism that it was five years ago."

Insurgent leaders there are proving unexpectedly dangerous because they have changed their tactics, abandoning direct attacks on military units in favor of a guerrilla-style hit-and-run approach, he said.

The new approach makes it vital that the American public remain committed to the U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney said, because the insurgents are willing to absorb heavy losses in a long battle of attrition.

"They can't beat us in a stand-up fight, but they're also convinced they can break our will," Cheney said.

He acknowledged that U.S. and Afghan forces, now joined by NATO forces, were "still in the fight for Afghanistan" almost five years after U.S. forces invaded to remove the Taliban for harboring al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

NATO said Sunday that 94 militants were killed in the Panjwayi and neighboring Zhari districts overnight, raising the toll from a counterinsurgency operation now in its ninth day past 420. Six NATO soldiers and 14 members of the British crew of a reconnaissance plane have also died.

Meanwhile, in eastern Afghanistan, a suicide bombing killed three people Sunday, including the governor of Paktia province, and wounded three others, police said.

The U.S. military said Saturday that a suicide bombing cell targeting foreign troops was operating in the capital, Kabul. The warning came two days after a car bomber rammed into a U.S. army convoy near the U.S. Embassy, killing 16 people, the worst such attack in the capital.

Other topics
In the hour-long interview, Cheney also:

Said he still disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision in June that the administration overstepped its authority in holding suspected terrorists without trials or the protections of the Geneva Conventions. He would not discuss specific treatment of detainees but said information gleaned from interrogations "helped us prevent attacks against the United States."

Refused to criticize plans by Republicans to spend millions off dollars on negative campaign ads against Democrats. "I hope our guys have good, hard-hitting advertisements. Certainly, the opposition does," he said. He predicted that Republicans would keep control of both House and the Senate.

Called his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who is awaiting trial in the CIA leak case, "a good man ... entitled to a presumption of innocence." Cheney would not comment on what his own role in that case may have been, saying he was likely to be called as a witness in Libby's trial.

Said that he had not been hunting since a Feb. 11 hunting trip in Texas when he accidentally shot lawyer Harry Whittington in the torso, neck and face but that he intended to go hunting again. "I don't know that you ever get over it," he said. "Fortunately, Harry is doing very well."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

------------------------------------------------


So having US soldiers die daily, "WMD or not", is worth the price?

Of course he would have. This gang knew it was going into Iraq the day the Supreme Court elected President Bush.

However, Congress might not have approved it.

I remember...
 

telling Deb that if Bush was ever elected he will go into Iraq to try to finish the job his 'Daddy' started....Seems I was accurate on that one :shrug:

You sure were. Why else would Dubya get all of the old guard from his daddy's era into his administration.

History will not look back at this kindly. We made a preemptive strike using rationale that has been proven to be false. Thousands of lives lost and ruined, obscene amounts of money spent, distraction from fighting the real enemy.

It is a national shame and disgrace.

Of course he said that - he is hardly going to admit the US Government was wrong now is he?...

GRRRRR I HATE those vultures, all of them. Warhawks, oil greedy damn the torpedoes mentality....they dont care how many lives are lost, it aint THEIR kids getting killed.... :mad: :mad: :mad:

Funny how the pro-Iraqi invasion people like Nancy/sodacouts have been strangely silent on this topic lately,:nod:

Was that jab really necessary? You're just lookin' for a fight.

Thats funny, I myself dont especially remember Nancy as being pro war :shrug:

I do remember Jason was all gung-ho to start with and then switched gears when no WMD were found....

She and I had a skirmish on here about it here the week it began in March of 2003 only 2 months before Mission Accomplished was declared.But you have to remember then like 70 percent of the U.S. supported it just about the inverse proportion now.

This proves their real intent was not about Saddam, it was about the OIL and getting their hands on it IMO.

I didnt realize that.....and I for one NEVER supported this sham of a war. NEVER. I never trusted Monkey Boy and I always suspected him of having an agenda, particularly when it became apparent to me that he and his kind would stop at nothing to gain access to the White House, even to co-opting the Supreme Court (particularly Scalia, that SCUM) into giving him the Presidency.

No, I did not.

My position has always been essentially that of Clinton, which is:

The world though SH had WMD and SH really did not do much to dispell that notion and, in fact, balked at UN inspections, etc. Then 9/11 happens and SH was a variable the world could not afford to ignore. So, I supported the UN resolutions calling for more inspections, which were underway when W abruptly announced the US was invading. It is at this point, I stopped agreeing with W's stated intent (but not his method) because I thought the inspections should have been allowed to continue and then the decision for war be made after that.

So, yes, no WMD were found (at least not any relevant ones) - but I still think W initially did the right thing by pressing SH's feet to the fire because the world could not put up with the possibility that SH had WMD, a notion SH was unwilling to dispell.

Again, we do not have the oil do we - so this is just an incorrect statement.

If you meant to say Halliburton profited, then that is correct.

But, we do not and likely never will have their oil.

Again, I think people have to look at the time and history. SH did essentially nothing to dispell the notion that he had WMD (likely because it made him feared in the region) and for 10+ years the world unanimously agreed via the UN that SH had them. So, that 70% number is not off base. It is actually, IMO, quite low considering the US hatred at the time of anything having to do with Muslims.

But, yes, Nancy was pro war - though I think he intent was pure and she is not a war monger or anything like that. I think she, like a lot of people, thought SH was a threat and, again, the world opinion for over a decade backed her up. I think it is also important to remember Nancy's parents worked in the Middle East, so she has that vantage point as well.

I have heard so many people say this exact same thing. I don't doubt it, but damn...is he that concerned with finishing the job that he'd put so many lives in danger. leads back to the whole theory that this was all a plot by the US government from the beginning.

that. scares the **** out of me.

This guy is such a sick, evil man.

In their defense (no, I can't believe I'm defending the position either) it's because the mainstream media, which most people still trusted, was cheerleading for the war. The right information was not available except on "crazy" liberal blogs and talk shows. :distress: NOW they are printing the stories with facts that were available 5 years ago; such as the lack of a real connection between Saddam and 9/11 and, for that matter, a lack of any connection between him and aiding any terrorists. It is truly sickening.

That is not really a fair statement. Again, the world unanimously thought SH had WMD and SH had attacked his neighbors and fought US soldiers before. So, the issue is not whether SH was a threat to us. He was. The issue is whether he was a contained threat. The evidence mostly showed SH was somewhat contained, but was unwilling to fess up about the WMD. Again, Clinton killed in the name of those WMD as well. So, the US under three presidents acted to nullify that perceived threat. My recollection is the press did print the information about the correlation, etc. The public just IMO did not care and some if not most of that was SH's own doing because the public and world (unanimously) viewed SH as a major threat to world peace.

Here is a cool site on the Administration's lies about rushing to the war in Iraq when they saw the inspections would reveal nothing significant.

http://www.americanprogress.org/Acco...IMFACT1029.HTM

The fact that "gang" members Cheney and Rumsfeld had previously sold the WMD story to Ronnie Ray-gun (with the weapons being in Russia) was a dead give away.

Gotta love that revisionist history dont ya?:mad:

Whatever, Dick. :rolleyes:

I know - and did you see him - he smirked the whole time. What an a$$ :mad:

I NEVER did. and neither did many other Ledgies. Im sure we werent the ONLY ones who didnt see Saddam with WMD. How many people did Clinton kill Jason? a FRACTION of what Bush the First or Bush the Second killed. Those Bushies more than any others knew that SH didnt have WMD any longer because Desert Storm effectively crippled SH from being any real threat. If SH had such weapons, I think he would have used them the first time, against us in Desert Storm.

Face it, YOU Jason, along with 90% of the rest of the Sheeple, believed the propaganda. I believed in my heart otherwise and time has proven me right.

btw, not EVERY nation was ready to jump on the WMD bandwagon if I recall correctly. Especially with Monkey Boy, there was quite a LOT of international opposition. France, China, Russia come to mind...

You are irrelevant to my point. You are not the leader of a world country. You do not vote in the UN. They are the people I was talking about and they unanimously voted to keep the inspections going because they thought SH had WMD. That is a fact you cannot refute.

And - even if Clinton killed one - that is enough - but, surely you realize the boycotts during the Clinton Admin. killed tens of thousands and more by some estimates. But, you cannot go against him ever and that is rather pathetic. And, even more pathetic is you cannot see that the situation in Iraq cannot be considered W's baby alone. W did not come into office and say "Hey, America, there is the country you have never heard of called Iraq and I am going to invade them" - No, he said:

1. the evidence mostly available for the last ten years indicated SH had WMD

2. SH is a sworn enemy of the US

3. 9/11 means we no longer can tolerate a dangerous variable such as SH, who has used WMD before, has invaded US allies, etc.

So, W got UN approval for inspections and they, after a final balk by SH, went ahead.

The world through their leaders was on board with the UN andthe US up until this point :shrug:

Then, W's malfeasance showed. He stopped the inspections before they were completed and invaded Iraq. This is where I and the world stopped supporting W - though I knew it would take invading Iraq to get to the real truth because I failed to see how anyone could trust SH, a player you interestingly fail to fault in this case. Do you not realize that if SH had allowed inspections of his entire country per his agreement at the end of DS, this would not be happening?

But, you cannot admit that. You want to think W is solely responsible for all of the misery in Iraq and no one can ever share that blame.

Let me put it this way - after 9/11, would you have been comfortable with no inspections in Iraq when all the evidence pointed to him having WMD and the prior US Administration told you SH had them. Should W have done nothing in Iraq? If you answer yes, W should have left Iraq alone and had no inspections, then I am afraid you have no credibility.

But, why take my word for it - here it is out of the horse's mouth:

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. 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.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Bush the FIRST was responsible for Desert Storm. Getting the UN on board was a bonus. The Bushies wanted that OIL by GAWD and they would do anything to get it, lives be damned. And, as I posted in all our previous threads, Saddam DID comply. I posted the whole frigging TIME LINE of Saddam's compliance and the WMD inspections.

And btw, I AM relevant to your point when you say "the WORLD" because the last time I checked I, along with other dissenters, also inhabit this globe. Again, not every nation wanted Iraq invaded, as I pointed out, France China and Russia come to mind.

I dont see how you can even bring Clinton in, but again it is your knee jerk reaction to say (along with all the other rabid right wingers) WHAT ABOUT CLINTON???? ITS HIS FAULT!! PUH LEEZ. you were wrong and I pointed it out way back when :mad:
you may find this interesting, it refutes some of your older points:
http://celticfringe.net/opinions/iraq1.shtml
EDIT: I posted my post when you posted your Clinton transcript. I appreciate you taking the time to post that. I cant find any fault with anything Clinton said or did because to me, it looked as though he was willing to pull back when SH complied and willing to use force when he didnt. He had the support of other nations and the international community. We werent all about the OIL under Clinton. :shrug:


in the end, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.....

Isn't it interesting that Clinton was forthcoming and eloquent in his explanation?

Progressive news outlets were reporting right away that the intelligence to go into Iraq was flawed but no one was listening.

Blah Blah Blah - once again, here are the UN Resoultions. Please tell me what countries were not on board for decades and up until and during the final inspections.

Security Council Resolutions Concerning Iraq



Read the entire White House background paper "A Decade of Deception and Defiance"

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated seventeen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002

Called for the immediate and complete disarmament of Iraq and its prohibited weapons.
Iraq must provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA full access to Iraqi facilities, individuals, means of transportation, and documents.
States that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999


Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.


Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998


"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997


"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.


Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997


"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997


"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996


"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996


Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994


"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991


Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991


"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.


Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.


Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991


"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."


Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."


Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.


Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."


Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.


Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.


Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991


Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990


Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm
_______________________________________________________

I cannot believe you are actually arguing this point, which is the world thought he had them and the US had killed thousands in the name of them way before W ever took office - yet all you can do is say W is solely to blame for all of the problems in and with Iraq and Clinton was a hero there and to bring Clinton's name up is blasphemy when all we should do is blame and hate W for dreaming up holding SH's feet to the fire when SH refused to comply for a decade or so. Hell, Clinton's bombing of Iraq was due, according to Clinton, to SH's refusal to comply as evidenced in the speech above and not Lewinsky and the subsequent related problems.

Talk about blind partisanship and head in the sand logic.

On edit - no comment on Oil for Food killing thousands - hmmmmmm

http://www.commondreams.org/views/071800-102.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolit.../Sanctions.asp

"When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."

http://www.alternet.org/story/26054/

Good thing Clinton was such a nice guy and only W started the killing of innocent Iraqis in the name of oil :rolleyes:

You really can't see that this all started way before W and was perpetuated by Clinton - thus, it must be considered in a timeline.

There can be no doubt that the current administration spins it to their advantage. I am not arguing that. I am just saying that the events that lead up to the current invastion of Iraq were seeded way before W ever took office and W, at least on the surface, was doing the right thing by holding SH's feet to the fire, esp. after 9/11. For example, if Clinton relied on essentially the same intelligence to hold SH's feet to the fire, then why is W bad for doing the same thing. Hell, Clinton even agreed with W for doing so. Yet, the hard core D's give Clinton a yard pass and W is the only bad guy here. That is BS to me.

Here is more on Clinton - I bolded the parts where he insists on Iraq haing unaccounted for WMD. So either Clinton too was lying, or, if Clinton was correct, then W had a peg to hang his hat on. Seeing it any other way is avoiding the facts and the facts are all that interest me.

Bill Clinton on Bush uranium line: 'Everybody makes mistakes'
Former president accepts explanation on State of the Union

WASHINGTON (CNN) --The White House, attacked by critics for a now-retracted line about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union address, has gotten some surprising support from former President Clinton.

"I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,' " Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening.

"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president," Clinton said. "I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think."

Clinton had called King to honor his guest, former Republican Sen. Bob Dole, on Dole's 80th birthday.

Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.

Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.

"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.

He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing is to move forward," she said. "I agree with President Clinton on that."

The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Earlier Tuesday, Bush's No. 2 national security aide took partial responsibility for allowing the inclusion of the dubious claim in the State of the Union address.

The admission by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley marked the first time the White House had taken any blame in the matter. An administration official told CNN that Hadley offered his resignation, but Bush didn't accept it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ton.iraq.sotu/


The mainstream media reported it as well. People just did not really care because Sh had been thumbing his nose at the US for a decade and people were tired of it. Moreover, after 9/11, they were scared that if he had the WMD, he would be emboldened to use them. I have to say that is a compelling argument considering the world (except Mary) thought he had them.

Jason, you only printed the resolutions, not how the countries VOTED!

the sad fact of the matter is, you were GUNG HO about invading Iraq and not even CLINTON did that! You were suckered in by the spin and propaganda and you got caught with your pants DOWN. Unlike me, who distrusted anything that came out of Monkey Boy's mouth. so, no matter how you try to justify it, it was a load of BULL and Monkey Boy had an agenda from the very beginning as I said. Maybe you need to go back and re-read those earlier posts!!

No, I do not. What I said then and I say now is Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with, esp. after 9/11. The world agrees with me on that.

What I do not agree with was the halting of the last set of inspections and the going to war essentially alone. While I could even stomach that because SH has a long history of stringing the world along, I find even more distasteful the administrations lack of a plan to win the peace there. If I ever said anything different, let's see it.

Sadly, you want to place it all on W's shoulders because you blindly hate him to the point of being unable to see any facts, which again are all that interest me. So, please argue them only from now on.

Also, still no comment on the thousands of dead children under Clinton's Oil For Food. Hmmmmmmm

Illegal Iraq Invasion

As for the UN votes (please note all that pre-W non-compliance talk - guess they should have called you)
________________________________________________

Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq

The Security Council,

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,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

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;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text

______________________________________________________________

Hmmm - a unanimous vote

U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections
Bush: 'All nations must continue to pressure Saddam'

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) --The United Nations Security Council on Friday approved a resolution that demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The vote is in line with U.S. efforts to win international backing for stripping Saddam Hussein of such weapons.

The resolution passed unanimously, after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.
"How this crisis is resolved will affect greatly the course of peace and security in the region and the world," Annan said after the vote. "I commend the council for acting today with purpose and resolve."

Iraq reportedly was reviewing the document. "Iraq will certainly study the resolution and decide whether we can accept it or not," Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N. Mohammed Al-Douri told The Associated Press. (More Iraqi reaction)

The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said Iraq will be disarmed "one way or another."

"If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security," Negroponte said.

Immediately following the vote, President Bush read a statement in the White House Rose Garden saying Iraq would face "the severest consequences" if it fails to comply with the resolution. "If we're to avert war, all nations must continue to pressure Saddam Hussein to accept this resolution and to comply with his obligations." (Bush statement)

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the international community must keep pressure on Iraq, or Baghdad will fall back to its old ways.

"The minute that Saddam Hussein and his small ruling clique sense that they're out of danger, I suspect that they'll have no further incentive to cooperation, and any U.N. inspection and disarmament efforts could then fail," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld also said that while the world waits for Baghdad to completely disarm, the United States will continue to work with the Iraqi opposition to prepare for the possibility of a future without Saddam.

"We will also continue developing humanitarian relief and reconstruction plans for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq," the defense secretary said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking from his London residence at 10 Downing Street, said that the world community had chosen "disarmament through the U.N., with force as a last resort." (More on international reactions)

Iraq is accused of possessing weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, biological, chemical -- in violation of the cease-fire treaty it signed when Baghdad lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has repeatedly denied possessing such weapons.

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix wasted no time Friday in announcing his intention to begin work in Iraq. "We are planning to go to Baghdad on Monday the 18th of this month, so it will be within seven to 10 days that we have planned," he told reporters.

Meanwhile in Baghdad, there are indications that Iraq might accept the resolution, finalized on Thursday.

The final text was approved with two modifications. It now includes one section in which the word "or" is replaced with "and." Also, the phrase "restore international peace and security" is changed to "secure international peace and security." (Text of resolution)

The original language concerned France, Russia and China, whose representatives said such wording might be used by the U.S. as a "hidden trigger" for an attack against Iraq.

Syria had wanted to have language included in the resolution indicating that if Baghdad complied with the terms of the resolution, sanctions against Iraq would be lifted. Syria also had wanted language included that would declare the entire Middle East a "nuclear-free and weapons of mass destruction-free zone."

On Thursday, Bush spoke by telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the White House said "both agreed on the need to reach a strong resolution" dealing with Iraq.

A Russian official said Moscow still had "some concerns" about the resolution but he believed it had changed for the better compared to its original format.

Bush also called French President Jacques Chirac. Bush would not characterize the nature of the talks.

View from Iraq

In Iraq, an article Thursday in al-Thawra ("Revolution"), the newspaper of the ruling Baath party, said: "It is not in Iraq's interest to ignore or contravene Security Council resolutions, as others do."

In exchange, it said, the Security Council should recognize Iraq's rights.

Observers say the comments in al-Thawra indicate that despite its objections, the Iraqi government recognizes the resolution as its last opportunity to avert war and will likely accept it.

In the past, Iraq has said no new Security Council resolution was needed.

Nevertheless, there was widespread belief among Iraqi leaders and people on the street that war is inevitable -- that the U.S. goal is not to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, but to topple its leader and seize its oil.

CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/0...ion/index.html

__________________________________________________________

So, what was your point again?

Thats Bull**** and you know it. first of all, Clinton never INVADED Iraq whereas Bushwhacker couldnt WAIT! And the Oil-for-food scheme was NOT Clinton's idea! Are you just pulling this stuff out of thin air? Also, your viewpoint changed when it became obvious you couldnt very well justify your pro-war stance based on faulty propaganda any longer. I dont buy into that whole "Saddam is a threat to the world" garbage. He really couldnt even do much in his own area primarily because of the damage inflicted on him in Desert Storm!!
I repeat, you got caught with your pants down. :shrug:

Out of curiousity - do you not see that SH is mostly to blame for this because of his repeated non-compliance. I get that at the very end, he may have complied, but it likely was a day late and a dollar short considering 9/11.

I mean if you had a neighbor who repeatedly told you he would comply with some zoning ordinance and for a decade lead you on, would would continue to believe him? I think not.

If you READ this you would have seen that the resolution was to give Iraq a final time to comply with inspections!! NOT TO INVADE!!!!!!!

US and UK withdrew from the Security council and Bush initiated a UNILATERAL strike. you should have read my post prior to yours. tsk.

No, Clinton just starved the Iraqi children to death to the tune of thousands a month or more. Yet, W is the only bad guy here for following in Clinton's footsteps :rolleyes:

Also, please argue facts.

Again, the UN unamimously passed the resolutions that called out SH for failing to comply with the inspections and all thought SH had WMD unaccounted for. If I said anything different let's see it.