First step towards that Mount Rushmore...

[The Ressurrected One]

...appearance Yonivore used to talk about?

In fact, his addition to Mount Rushmore will not be based on what you and I think today but, on what the future holds for the middle east. If in a hundred years, the democratic reforms sparked by President Bush's "Bush Doctrine" are realized in peaceful governments "of the people, by the people, and for the people," then I say chiseling him in next to the four greats already there is a foregone conclusion. After all, this President set in motion changes that have eluded civilization for thousands of years. And, make no mistake, regardless of what his detractors say about him now -- history will recognize it was THIS President at THIS moment in time that effected the change through his risky, but brilliant, strategy of establishing democratic governments in the heart of Islamic Fundamentalist theocracies.

Nobel for Bush and Blair? (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0504/p09s02-cojh.html)

The rationale is sound...



SALT LAKE CITY – I have a provocative suggestion for the Nobel Prize selection committee: Tony Blair and George Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize.

They deserve it for ridding us of Saddam Hussein, undoubtedly one of the world's worst tyrants and mass murderers since Adolf Hitler, and for triggering a wave of democratic stirring throughout Islamic world.

It would be a particularly fitting tribute for the prime minister, who may or may not survive this week's British general election. But whether in or out of office, he should be honored for standing for principle in Iraq in the face of considerable dissent from his own compatriots. His stand is reminiscent of that of Winston Churchill in the late 1930s who correctly pinpointed the evil of Hitler while some of his countrymen looked the other way.

Now before the steam starts coming out of the ears of all those anti-Bush and anti-Blair folks, let's look at a few facts.

One of the foremost arguments likely to be marshaled against a Nobel for Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair is that they brought freedom to Iraq only after waging war. But a string of other winners got the peace prize after being involved in both war and peace. They include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter.

Another criticism is that the war in Iraq was waged on the pretext of neutralizing Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. True, those weapons turned out not to be there. But every major Western intelligence service believed before the outset of war that they were there. The United Nations believed they were there. The Israelis believed they were there. The Saudis believed they were there. Some of Hussein's generals believed they were there because Hussein told them so, even while he was telling the UN they weren't there. US intelligence agencies believed they were there. And, in the face of all this, Bush and Blair mistakenly believed they were there.

If the premise was wrong, the overthrow of Hussein was still a plus for everyone who cherishes freedom for all.

Bush and Blair, the American conservative and British Labourite, were at one on ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan and setting that tragic Islamic land on the road to democracy.

But it was the elimination of Hussein and the stirring turnout of millions of newly emancipated voters in Iraq - in defiance of death threats - that inspired the beginnings of a movement throughout the Arab world to claim freedom from repression and backwardness.

Thus we have witnessed Palestinians begin an orderly series of democratic elections, starting with the installation of their president, Mahmoud Abbas. With the passing of Arafat we have seen small but heartening steps in the direction of peace between Palestinians and Israelis - a cause Prime Minister Blair has forcefully championed.

Two important Arab allies of the US - Saudi Arabia and Egypt - have, in the face of nudging by Bush, taken some hesitant steps in the right direction.

Saudi Arabia, has held limited, but nonetheless welcome, elections for municipal councils.

Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, sensing the winds of change, will for the first time allow direct multiparty presidential elections in October. Those carefully orchestrated elections are likely to return Mr. Mubarak to power, but opposition parties are hopeful that further reforms will ensue.

Extraordinary events have taken place suddenly in Lebanon. Last week the longtime presence of Syrian occupation troops came to an end after significant international pressure upon the Damascus regime. Lebanon will conduct parliamentary elections in May, thus opening a new chapter in that country's history.

These events are a setback for Syria's dictatorial leader Bashar al-Assad, whose people see not only the makings of democracy in Iraq, but also in neighboring Lebanon, where huge crowds have taken to the streets in praise of liberty.

Even in Iran, presidential elections are due next month. There can be little optimism about the outcome there because the ruling regime has exerted a repressive hand upon opposition newspapers and politicians, carefully eliminating candidates who favor change. Nonetheless, even though they have little immediate chance of upending the regime by orthodox means, there is a wave of discontent among under-30 Iranians, who are acutely conscious of the positive changes taking place in nations around them.

When democracy takes hold in this region, the contribution of such Western leaders as Bush and Blair should not be overlooked.

John Hughes, who served as assistant secretary of State in the Reagan administration, is a former editor of the Monitor.

[jalbre6]

I read through that article and there was no mention of Molly Ringwald anywhere. What gives?

[The Ressurrected One]

what garbage
Well, that's certainly a cogent rebuttal. Thanks for your insight.

[jalbre6]

Well, that's certainly a cogent rebuttal. Thanks for your insight.


OK TROYoni, I'll retort. There is no fucking way that Blair and Dubya are going to get a Nobel Peace Prize after prosecuting such a globally unpopular war. Fifteen years from now, if the whole democratic Middle East project does work out, and people around the world have the same short memories that Americans do, then maybe.

Teddy Roosevelt got his for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1906. Woodrow Wilson got his for his Fourteen Points framework for peace after WW2 in 1919. Most recently, Jimmy Carter got his in 2003 for advancing democracy and human rights after he left office 20+ years earlier.

Maybe some sort of Democracy medal, sure, but not a Nobel Peace Prize, something that Dr. King, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, the Quakers, and Mother Teresa have.

[The Ressurrected One]

OK TROYoni, I'll retort. There is no fucking way that Blair and Dubya are going to get a Nobel Peace Prize after prosecuting such a globally unpopular war. Fifteen years from now, if the whole democratic Middle East project does work out, and people around the world have the same short memories that Americans do, then maybe.

Teddy Roosevelt got his for mediating the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1906. Woodrow Wilson got his for his Fourteen Points framework for peace after WW2 in 1919. Most recently, Jimmy Carter got his in 2003 for advancing democracy and human rights after he left office 20+ years earlier.

Maybe some sort of Democracy medal, sure, but not a Nobel Peace Prize, something that Dr. King, Mandela, the Dalai Lama, the Quakers, and Mother Teresa have.
I agree, there's no way -- but not for the reasons you state. The Nobel committee is a bunch of liberal anti-American weenies.

Anyway, to follow up on your rebuttal...why did Yassar Arafat get one? He continued to be a Palestinian terrorist to the very end of his sad, pathetic existence.

[jalbre6]

I agree, there's no way -- but not for the reasons you state. The Nobel committee is a bunch of liberal anti-American weenies.

Anyway, to follow up on your rebuttal...why did Yassar Arafat get one? He continued to be a Palestinian terrorist to the very end of his sad, pathetic existence.

In your world, "liberal anti-American weenies" are the same folks that are against this war, right? If so, I think we did have the same reasons.

Arafat got 1/3rd of a NPP, along with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres(sp?) and Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, for agreeing on and signing the Oslo Accords, I think. I'd have to look it up further.

[The Ressurrected One]

In your world, "liberal anti-American weenies" are the same folks that are against this war, right? If so, I think we did have the same reasons.
Yes...they're also the same people who chided America into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. And, no, we don't have the same reasoning.

Arafat got 1/3rd of a NPP, along with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres(sp?) and Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, for agreeing on and signing the Oslo Accords, I think. I'd have to look it up further.[/QUOTE]
Still, he got one! And, you're suggesting that if democracy comes to the middle east, George W. Bush and Tony Blair wouldn't even be in the running? Dang!

[jalbre6]

Yes...they're also the same people who chided America into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam. And, no, we don't have the same reasoning.

Arafat got 1/3rd of a NPP, along with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres(sp?) and Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin, for agreeing on and signing the Oslo Accords, I think. I'd have to look it up further.
Still, he got one! And, you're suggesting that if democracy comes to the middle east, George W. Bush and Tony Blair wouldn't even be in the running? Dang!


I said reasons, not reasoning. You and me might never have the same reasoning.

Anyway, Arafat, Peres, and Rabin got a NPP for "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East", and the treaty was signed in Norway to immense public response, and the award was presented in neighboring allied Sweden. The US-led coalition went to the Middle East to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, and then the campaign was warped from ridding a tyrant of WMD's to ridding a country of a tyrant and starting a revolution.

I'm not saying that any of this is utterly horrible, it's just not the bill of goods that the US public and the global community was sold. And I said that this might be possible in fifteen years or so, just not right now.

Luckily for Blair and Bush, people tend to have short memories.

[The Ressurrected One]

"...'for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East',..."
So, if the President's actions actually do result in peace in the Middle East, he's somehow less deserving?

"...and the treaty was signed in Norway to immense public response,..."
And Arafat went on Palestinian T.V. and, in his native tongue, re-commenced to spewing his anti-semitic vomit. Still, they gave him a piece of the award for a hollow treaty that went nowhere.

"...and the award was presented in neighboring allied Sweden.
Newsflash. They're always presented in Sweden. That's where the Nobel committee calls home.

"The US-led coalition went to the Middle East to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, and then the campaign was warped from ridding a tyrant of WMD's to ridding a country of a tyrant and starting a revolution."
You need to go back and re-read a couple of dozen UNSC resolutions and the President's and Secretary Powell's 2002 and 2003 speeches to that august body. WMD's were only ever a part of the rationale. It merely appears to you to have been the ONLY rationale because that's all the media has talked about from day one.

But, on WMD's. Everyone, from the UN to Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein's Generals thought Iraq had WMD's...so, based on that alone, I don't see a problem with the action.

I'm not saying that any of this is utterly horrible, it's just not the bill of goods that the US public and the global community was sold. And I said that this might be possible in fifteen years or so, just not right now.
Hell, as long as it's called the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see George W. Bush putting his hands on one. But, the original propostion, regarding Mount Rushmore and the rationale for why he should be considered one of the greatest American Presidents of all time, stands.

I only think it will become apparent in hindsight...but, that's okay with me and, apparently, with President Bush.

Luckily for Blair and Bush, people tend to have short memories.
History does not.

[jalbre6]

So, if the President's actions actually do result in peace in the Middle East, he's somehow less deserving?

No. What I said is that him and Blair are prosecuting a highly unpopular war, and if either would recieve a Peace Prize for their actions in the Middle East, it's going to take a while.


And Arafat went on Palestinian T.V. and, in his native tongue, re-commenced to spewing his anti-semitic vomit. Still, they gave him a piece of the award for a hollow treaty that went nowhere.

Jesus, now I have to defend Yasser Arafat? :lol I'll pass. They should have waited to see the effects of the treaty rather than just give him one for signing.


Newsflash. They're always presented in Sweden. That's where the Nobel committee calls home.

Fine, smartass. The Oslo Accords were very popular in the Nordic countries ten or eleven years ago. It's a shame for all of us that they didn't work out. Highly optimistic thinking.


You need to go back and re-read a couple of dozen UNSC resolutions and the President's and Secretary Powell's 2002 and 2003 speeches to that august body. WMD's were only ever a part of the rationale. It merely appears to you to have been the ONLY rationale because that's all the media has talked about from day one.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/irqindx.htm

Ok, I did. And WMD's are listed in virtually every resolution. I'd be more than happy to read the ones you are talking about.


But, on WMD's. Everyone, from the UN to Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein's Generals thought Iraq had WMD's...so, based on that alone, I don't see a problem with the action.

Yup, and that would explain why all the UNSC documents I found list them.


Hell, as long as it's called the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't see George W. Bush putting his hands on one. But, the original propostion, regarding Mount Rushmore and the rationale for why he should be considered one of the greatest American Presidents of all time, stands.

If everything works out in the matter you're hoping for, you may very well be right. I personally think not, but that really doesn't matter. A lot of people in this country would spend a lot of money and exercise a lot of power trying to ensure that never happening.

[The Ressurrected One]

Let's review, please note I've bolded the portions relevant to our discussion...that WMD's were not the only justification given by the administration for invading Iraq and effecting a regime change.

I await your response.

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq (http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml)


Summary

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

The bill authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It also directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Finally, the bill requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

Background

In 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq. After the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism.

The efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated. Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the ceasefire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998. In 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President ‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’’ (P.L. 105–235). Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait. The current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people. Additionally, the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.

The attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations. Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself. In addition, United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1) has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’.

The Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105–338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. On September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’’. The United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.

Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations. The President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations. In addition, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107–40). Finally, it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.

And, the vote? It was a bi-partisan vote...both sides of the aisle voted to approve.


Legislative History

H.J.Res. 114 was introduced by Speaker Hastert on October 2, 2002. It was reported from the International Relations Committee, as amended, by a vote of 31-11 on October 3, 2002. On October 10, 2002, the bill was agreed to in the House by vote of 296 - 133. On October 11, 2002, the bill was agreed to in the Senate by a vote of 77 - 23.

[jalbre6]

Thanks for the read, but that isn't a United Nations Security Council document.


You need to go back and re-read a couple of dozen UNSC resolutions and the President's and Secretary Powell's 2002 and 2003 speeches to that august body. WMD's were only ever a part of the rationale. It merely appears to you to have been the ONLY rationale because that's all the media has talked about from day one.

[The Ressurrected One]

Thanks for the read, but that isn't a United Nations Security Council document.
You're pretty observant.

It's a Congressional Act giving the President of the United States the authority to do what he did based on Iraq's continued defiance of dozens of U.N.S.C. resolutions...of which WMD's are only ONE of the subjects.

I could have put them all up, but, you're neither worth the time nor the trouble. They're all numbered in the Joint Resolution...go do some research for a change and quit listening to Nbadan and the rest of the anti-American, blame the US, crowd.

The world is a better place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. Period.
The world will be a safer place when the terrorists and insurgents, in Iraq, are defeated. Period.

[jalbre6]

You're pretty observant.

It's a Congressional Act giving the President of the United States the authority to do what he did based on Iraq's continued defiance of dozens of U.N.S.C. resolutions...of which WMD's are only ONE of the subjects.

I could have put them all up, but, you're neither worth the time nor the trouble. They're all numbered in the Joint Resolution...go do some research for a change and quit listening to Nbadan and the rest of the anti-American, blame the US, crowd.

The world is a better place now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. Period.
The world will be a safer place when the terrorists and insurgents, in Iraq, are defeated. Period.

I like you a lot better without the condescending attitude. And you posted a congressional act when we were discussing UNSC resolutions. So either post the relevant document or go away quietly.

[The Ressurrected One]

Okay, everyone put on your best Bill Clinton "I-feel-your-pain" impersonation before reading the next item...which, incidentally, is a statement from that "esteemed" former President regarding the Liberation of Iraq by regime change...

Wow! One of the justifications for going to war with Iraq. I thought the left said this was a newly minted reason for invading...but, no...it's 7 years old.

You know, jalbre6, just because you and most of the Left slept through the 90's only to wake up and believe President Bush was a rogue adminstrator taking the country in a totally new direction -- doesn't make it so.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

[jalbre6]

Yoni,

Let me make something very clear to you. We're not discussing Clinton's ILA or House Joint Resolution 114 of 2002. Your quote, yet again:


You need to go back and re-read a couple of dozen UNSC resolutions and the President's and Secretary Powell's 2002 and 2003 speeches to that august body. WMD's were only ever a part of the rationale. It merely appears to you to have been the ONLY rationale because that's all the media has talked about from day one.

I want you to show me a document that show that WMD's were just one part of any one of the twenty-four or so UNSC resolutions, or of Powell and Bush's addresses to either the UN or the Security Council. Show me the rest of the "rationale", Yoni. And stop ducking under other documents.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Ressurected One, I'm too lazy to find a link but you're resourceful so i know you can find this

I saw (about 4 days ago) an article on msn.com about how China is well on its way to becoming the politcal economic and super power of the world. You are talking as if Bush's accomplishments are going to be praised the world over.

I guess Bush getting on mt Rushmore is possible, but then again so is cold fusion. Regardless of what you say is true, it would still take complete lack of regard for the opinions of every other country now and in the future. (if you maintain that other countries citizens and politicians like bush, i want proof..)

But you should really search for that article, it had good stuff. About how Bush and The leader of China did a bunch of traveling through Asian countires doing speeches. It said how all Bush talked about was "terror this" and "terror that" while the Chinese leader talked about economic reform for that country they were talking to.

Guess who was received better?

seriously though, check it out.

[The Ressurrected One]

Yoni,

Let me make something very clear to you. We're not discussing Clinton's ILA or House Joint Resolution 114 of 2002.

I want you to show me a document that show that WMD's were just one part of any one of the twenty-four or so UNSC resolutions, or of Powell and Bush's addresses to either the UN or the Security Council. Show me the rest of the "rationale", Yoni. And stop ducking under other documents.
My point exactly. Some of the UN resolutions mentioned in the rationale for going to war don't even mention WMD's.

[The Ressurrected One]

Ressurected One, I'm too lazy...
Then I'm not interested in what you have to say.

[Clandestino]

Thanks for the read, but that isn't a United Nations Security Council document.

john kerry jr... the u.s. doesn't need un approval.

[ChumpDumper]

If stagflation hits, he'll be lucky to get a public restroom named after him.

[scott]

The Christian Science Monitor think that Bush should get a Nobel? Well then wait are we waiting for???

[Clandestino]

UTSA is trying to get the Bush library.

[The Ressurrected One]

The Christian Science Monitor think that Bush should get a Nobel? Well then wait are we waiting for???
Actually it's a former assistant SOS.

[ChumpDumper]

UTSA is trying to get the Bush library.I thought Tech already got that. Anyway, you know what I mean. What else are they going to name a Presidential library after?

[Clandestino]

I thought Tech already got that. Anyway, you know what I mean. What else are they going to name a Presidential library after?

not sure, i just heard it a while back...

[Clandestino]

UTSA bids for George W. Bush presidential library
By Carol Cutter

News editor

April 26, 2005

Last Monday, President Ricardo Romo submitted a proposal to the UT Board of Regents for UTSA to host the George W. Bush presidential library and museum.
Many universities, including SMU, Baylor and UT Arlington, are also potential sites.

"It is very prestigious to have," Romo said. "A presidential library would attract scholars and students from around the nation, and it could put UTSA on the map for international students."

A presidential library could help push UTSA to tier-one status and expand school programing.

The proposal also includes plans for the George W. Bush Institute for Freedom and a high security conference center and hotel. According to UTSA's proposal, the institute would serve as an international think tank and secure a meeting place for leaders from all over the world. The hotel would cater to world leaders and scholars. "This could add international flavor to our campus," Romo said.

According to Steve Collins, associate vice chancellor for governmental relations, the advisory committee for the UT system has asked all interested UT schools to continue working on their proposals and to work together.

Collins said the advisory committee is looking to support a proposal that would include a combination of campus and programs. For example, the library might be housed at UTSA, but the museum would be housed at UT-Arlington.

In UTSA's favor is the amount of space available for the library. "We happen to be blessed with a lot of land," Romo said.

UTSA plans to build the library on the land behind the Main Building (MB), if selected to host the facility. Romo is hoping the city of San Antonio will be a selling point. "San Antonio is a great city. It accommodates tourism and the military. We have good highways and a great airport," Romo said of the city's commodities.

If UTSA is selected for the site of the library, fund raising would be done on the national level. In the past, presidents have done a majority of the fund raising for their libraries. This removes most of the financial burden from the universities.

UTSA and other interested schools will submit updated proposals on May 23, when the advisory committee meets again in Austin.

According to Collins, presidents usually choose the site for their library within the last fall of their presidency.

"We don't have any indications that he [President Bush] is in a hurry," Collins said. "But again, he could make a decision as early as tomorrow."

http://www.paisano-online.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/26/426eb18cca4dc

[exstatic]

UTSA is trying to get the Bush library.

That would be fucking perfect. Generic State University gets the library for NeoCon cardboard cutout President. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I'm all for it, especially if it means tier one status for UTSA.

[CommanderMcBragg]

Just because Bush is dumb as a rock doesn't mean his grill needs to be on Mt. Rushmore.

[scott]

If UTSA or UT Arlington got the Dubya Library, I would laugh my ass off. Not exactly what you'd expect out of one of the purported greatest presidents in history.